"Universities like, Rice and Harvard, typically do not let their professors to use the school’s name on their work unless their research is pier reviewed." If this man is writing an article, he can use his title, and mention his place of employment without it meaning that the University stands by his statements.
"It’s obvious that you have never had any contact with a quality school"
That's funny, what's truly obvious is that I am starting to get under your skin. It's going to get worse.
"The Center for Immigration Studies, and the Federation of American Immigration Reform are not anti-immigrant as you try to claim. They are anti-criminal."
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
They are against ALL immigration...period.
"Rice and Harvard would not have any association with an anti-immigrant group."
Let's see, you are insinuating that the fact that Rice and Harvard were mentioned as sources for the same article means that they actively approved of their being mentioned in the same breath as these two xenophobic organizations?
Did you also have to get their approval to mention them alongside Xenophobes, Inc. in your response here?
"Nobody minds non-criminal immigrants coming here."
Well, your heroes over at the Center for anti-Immigration Studies, and the Confederation on American Immigration Reform do.
It's becoming painfully obvious you may have driven by a school or two in your lifetime, but that's about it.
OK Luis, let’s see if we can make this easy enough for even you to understand. Professors have contracts with universities. Prestigious universities (that means good ones) typically have a clause regulating how the university’s name is used in outside research.
Dr. Lott was a professor at Harvard when he and I were on the same speaking schedule, and I fell to me to introduce him. I couldn’t introduce him as Dr. Lott of Harvard because he was speaking about his book, More Guns Less Crime that hadn’t been pier reviewed yet. Harvard didn’t just dream this up when they hired Dr. Lott.
You may not be able to distinguish between law-abiding immigrants and criminals but most Americans can. Neither of these groups is against all immigrants as you claim. They are against criminals and immigrants who come to be cared for by our welfare system. They are very much in favor of a warm reception for law-abiding, industrious, skilled, immigrants.
We have enough of our own criminals and lazy welfare sponges without importing more. Those of us who pay the taxes that support these drains on society can’t don’t want any more of them heaped on us. Those of us who are law-abiding, don’t want any more criminals in the country.
I don’t know why that is too hard for you to understand. Are you one of the criminal employers who is making a living from employing the illegal aliens? Is that why you are such a big supporter of these criminals?