Replies

"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."

I'll type slowly so that you can keep up.

I can extrapolate information to support my op-ed article (that was what you posted by the way) from published studies, and I am not required to actually get permission from the good Doctor's employer to do so, and that information does not have to actually take a side, but I can use it to support my opinion.

The professor from Rice did not write the article you posted...did he?

Your good Dr. Lott was speaking about his book, which is quite different from me writing an article that uses data from Dr. Lott's book...Harvard could not stop me from doing so.

I am a realist, aware that we need a realistic solution to the problem of 10 million illegal aliens living on our soil, I don't waste my time with useless ideological mental self-eroticism, I believe in the action of DOING.

If we have a problem with these people coming and staying here illegally, while simultaneously realizing that they do in fact benefit the economy, then I say we allow them to come and provide us with the benefits of their labor, then allow them to go home...with the promise that they may come back as long as they come to work.

First, I didn’t post the article. If you go back to post #393 you find the article. I just commented on your ridiculous assertion that the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation of American Immigration Reform, Rice University, the San Diego Union Tribune, Harvard University, and the National Academy of Sciences are “anti-immigrant”, and didn’t do that until post #398.

Second, you make a major mistake when you say; “while simultaneously realizing that they do in fact benefit the economy,” the criminals are a drain on the economy not a benefit. They use more than they contribute.

On top of that, they weaken the fiber of our society. Just by being here they cause more crime. For starters if they weren’t here, the criminals who employ them wouldn’t turn to crime, because the temptation wouldn’t be there, and the means to commit the crime wouldn’t be there. An employer can’t illegally hire a criminal if the criminal isn’t here to be hired. Neither criminal alien, nor the criminal employer can evade employment taxes if the criminal alien didn’t come here illegally.

It also sends a message to people throughout our country that breaking the law is acceptable behavior. Rewarding the criminals for breaking the law by allowing them to stay here sends an even worse message. It sends the message that crime pays and the way to get ahead here is to be a criminal.

Plus it is a slap in the face of every immigrant who followed the rules and came here legally. People like my sister-in-law’s father, who waited 7 years to get a visa to come here to work. It burns his butt, that friends and relatives of his are still in Italy, having given up on waiting for their papers, and criminals are swarming all over the country. You don’t want to hear his thoughts on rewarding the criminals for their crimes.

Then there is the question of how will they enforce the new laws. If Bush and Ashcroft are so incompetent that they can’t enforce the current law, how are they going to manage to enforce the new law?

No, the solution to the problem is to enforce the laws we have on the books now. Then when we rid our selves of the criminals, let law-abiding people apply to come here.