New immigration thread on Confirm Them!

[2ndamendsis]

what's JUST BARELY?
{if you don't mind me asking...but even if you do I'm asking anyway, lol}

[Shapka]

Passed Whipper-snapperism, that is.

http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm

These kids aren't baby boomers. They're part of a generation that rivals the baby boom in size--and will soon rival it in buying clout. These are the sons and daughters of boomers.

Born during a baby bulge that demographers locate between 1979 and 1994, they are as young as five and as old as 20, with the largest slice still a decade away from adolescence. And at 60 million strong, more than three times the size of Generation X, they're the biggest thing to hit the American scene since the 72 million baby boomers. Still too young to have forged a name for themselves, they go by a host of taglines: Generation Y, Echo Boomers, or Millennium Generation.

I'm at the beginning of that curve.

[Shapka]

To answer your question, I was born the same year that President Reagan was inaugurated.

[CountFloyd]

Q The Heritage Foundation analyzed the bill that’s on the Senate floor and came up with a statistic that in the next 20 years, you’re talking about 100 million illegal immigrants coming into the United States, which would have a profound challenge to assimilation and really change the culture of this country. And I was wondering if the White House has a position as to, you know, what is the ballpark of how many legal immigrants we should be accepting in the next 20 years, 10 years, five years?

MR. KAPLAN: How many legal immigrants?

Q Yes.

MR. KAPLAN: I think that that’s also something that needs to be worked out in the context of the conference between the House and Senate, where I think the idea is to let the Senate act. Obviously, they’ve got some numbers in their bill, but that will be something that we’ll want to engage in when it gets into the conference situation.

The Heritage Report, I have not read it. First of all, it’s analyzing a bill that’s on the Senate floor, which we’re not — we’re talking about getting into conference and negotiating a bill, so I’m not sure whether the Senate bill is the right benchmark.

I understand there may be some double counting going on in the analysis in that bill — excuse me, in that report from Heritage, but again, I have not –

MR. SNOW: We’ve got some people looking through –

It's interesting that no one has refuted this analysis of the bill.

[2ndamendsis]

This is killing me but

YOU'RE STILL A WHIPPER-SNAPPER!

guess, this time, I was wrong

[Shapka]

Q The Heritage Foundation analyzed the bill that’s on the Senate floor and came up with a statistic that in the next 20 years, you’re talking about 100 million illegal immigrants coming into the United States, which would have a profound challenge to assimilation and really change the culture of this country. And I was wondering if the White House has a position as to, you know, what is the ballpark of how many legal immigrants we should be accepting in the next 20 years, 10 years, five years?

MR. KAPLAN: How many legal immigrants?

Q Yes.

MR. KAPLAN: I think that that’s also something that needs to be worked out in the context of the conference between the House and Senate, where I think the idea is to let the Senate act. Obviously, they’ve got some numbers in their bill, but that will be something that we’ll want to engage in when it gets into the conference situation.

The Heritage Report, I have not read it. First of all, it’s analyzing a bill that’s on the Senate floor, which we’re not — we’re talking about getting into conference and negotiating a bill, so I’m not sure whether the Senate bill is the right benchmark.

I understand there may be some double counting going on in the analysis in that bill — excuse me, in that report from Heritage, but again, I have not –

MR. SNOW: We’ve got some people looking through –

It's interesting that no one has refuted this analysis of the bill.

Interesting, but not surprising.

Did you hear Michael Chertoff being interviewed by Sean Hannity today?

Hemming, hawing, claiming that this study sketched out an outlandish, exaggerated scenario-that no one he talked to believed would occur-even though he admitted that he had no evidence to prove that it was embellishing the situation, and that he hadn't even examined the study that closely.