Posted on 12/31/2004 5:43:33 AM PST by white trash redneck
And for purely cynical political reasons, after vetoing welfare reform 3 times, don't you agree with that(especially after Clinton went against his core leftist being).
The Clinton's are all about gaining power, damn the principles.
1917 (to be exact) saw the passage of "Asia Barred Zone". Further laws in the 1920s, for example the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, also known as the Permanent National Origins Quota Act, began a quota system that lasted for 40 years.
This act, combined with standards regarding citizenship, whether statutory or precedental, clearly established that Asians were not welcome, and neither was anyone else who might look Asian.
Classically the national origins quota system has been taught in public schools as justified by the influx of Italian and Greek immigrants who sought to come to America "only to make money" and who "refused to assimilate".
I've always thought it remarkable that even before the economic dislocations that began in 1929, our Solons in Congress had in 1924 the wisdom and foresignt to see that Greeks and Italians might decide to return home rather than starve to death in breadlines in the Great Depression nearly a decade later.
I think the restrictions you are referring to regarding your grandfather were those barring idiots, syphilitics, anarchists, polygamists and folks with TB. Guess he passed the tests.
Off topic again. He signed it. I leave you to traduce Clinton's motives. I don't give a damn about tham. He signed it.
You do know that the Mexican President is elected for a single 6 year term don't you(it's almost like when being elected there the President is an automatic lame duck). The next Mexican Presidential election is in 2006, who would you give your support in 2006?
Uh, just pointing out the fact that Clinton vetoed welfare reform 3 times, tough noogies if you don't like that fact.
"I agree however with the notion that Hispanics are not coming here for welfare per se"
Okay, I had about a dozen living across the street in a 800sq. ft house, before I sold and left. 3 or 4 of the men left daily, let's assume they worked. The woman and 5 kids got all the social benefits, even down to the 3 year olds ear piercing.
Here's some material on Social service costs to illegals.
Cost of illegal immigration in California estimated at nearly $9 billion (VERY INFORMATIVE!!!)
On News/Activism 12/07/2004 1:00:09 PM PST · 120 replies · 1,702+ views
North County Times ^ | 12/06/2004 | EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1296406/posts
______
HHS Says Healthcare Providers Must Provide Free Translation Services
On News/Activism 10/08/2004 11:23:47 PM PDT · 20 replies · 249+ views
Pacific Legal Foundation ^ | September 2004 | Pacific Legal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1239789/posts
________
Illegal Immigrants' Cost to Government Studied
By Mary Fitzgerald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 2004; Page A21
A report that found that illegal immigrants in the United States cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year -- a sum it estimated would almost triple if they were given amnesty -- has drawn criticism from immigration advocacy groups.
For its report, the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that advocates tougher immigration policies, used Census Bureau figures to compare the revenue that illegal immigrants contribute through taxes with the cost of government services they use. ----snip----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html
_____
I didn't say it all penciled, fiscally. It clearly does NOT in the short term. I might have been born at night, but not last night. I think it might pencil looking back a generation or tow hence. In fact, I suspect it will, but I could be wrong.
Look at me... RED TEXT ALL OVER DA PLACE!!!
Now look at me again... BLUE TEXT ALL OVER DA PLACE!!!
NOW look at me again, again... BIG TEXT ALL OVER DA PLACE!!!
You see, stupid, isn't it?...
I agree with your font abuse point. It is VERY annoying to me. Typcially folks use it who lack substance otherwise, and thus feel the need for compensatory puerile graphics.
Let me give you an example. Just as Congress was passing Welfare Reform the USPS was implementing a new standard called "Move Update" that involved changes of address.
If a mass mailer of First-Class Mail did not make sure he had the latest address for all the addresses on his mailing list he would have to pay the higher rate applicable to ordinary mortals rather than the substantially discounted rate given to big corporations (all with good reason mind you).
Welfare folks regularly mail stuff to welfare recipients even if the checks are transferred directly to banks where the recipients hold accounts.
Move-Update had a tool associated with it that allowed mailers to quickly access change of address orders filed back to 3 years before. It was fast, done by computer, and seemed to be something that could pay for itself almost with the first run of a list.
Well, the Welfare People had a rule running back to the establishment of the federal welfare operation in the 1930s that seemed rather innocuous and simple, but almost unenforceable. The rule required any welfare recipient to report to a case worker if he or she "changed address". Else, no welfare payment could be made.
It was claimed (or alleged, or imagined) that many welfare recipients cheated by simply qualifying at one address, moving to another and qualifying there under another name, and then moving to yet another and qualifying there. The thought was many welfare recipients were cheats who took far more than they were due.
Well, the welfare people in the various state finance departments were among the very first to use Move Update's "Fast Forward" system to get the latest addresses of the folks getting the big bucks.
Numerous states reported that sometimes MORE THAN HALF of the recipients did not qualify for payment since they had MOVED and not reported to a caseworker!
Well, the story is that Welfare Reform worked. Half the folks came off welfare and got jobs. America got better, and everybody was happier.
So, was it the magic of Welfare Reform and the smiling faces of the case workers extending new educational opportunities to recipients, or the cold hard discipline of a robot-like machine called "Fast Forward" that did the trick?
You be the judge.
Similar magic can be performed with careful application of computer power to the question of proving or disproving identification. All that's missing is an instant penalty, and that might well be the cancellation of credit cards and the freezing of bank accounts, either of the employer, the illegal, or both, and maybe those of their friends, relatives and neighbors ~ whatever it takes. It'd sure wake folks up.
To borrow a phrase:
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."
I'm not into exchanging insults or engage in childish "flame wars". I have a real life, and I only come to FR for exchange of information, not to engage in an ICQ teenbopper trashtalk.
Happy New Year, and best wishes for 2005.
Thanks!
Happy New Year to you too!
I'm well aware of the role of the Cherokee tribe in American history. Most of the people opposing the "illegal immigrants" from south of the border are very racist. By the way I figured you were native American by your id. I was just teasing you though. I am part native American too.
"Very few. In fact what we get invading the United States are Mexicans from Mexican Indian tribes and Mestizos who are partly Mexican Indian and part Spanish. These Mexican Indians never lived in Texas, Arizona or California. And they certainly never lived in North Carolina or Chicago which have lots of illegal alien Mexicans."
The ancestors of many of the Mexican Indians were driven from our country. Probably more than either of us will ever know, right? Also, much of our country was once controlled by Spain and then Mexico. Texas as you will recall was once part of Mexico.
LOL! You sound authoritative, so you must have evidence.
"Most of the people opposing the "illegal immigrants" from south of the border are very racist"
You are misinformed unless you consider 85% of Free Republic racist and people like Wm. F. Buckley,Limbaugh, Frum, Michael Reagan, some from GOPUSA and many others. 47% of the "hispanic" population in Arizona voted for prop 200.
Nope. No-one has the backbone to do it. And, unfortunately, in this climate anyone who tries will be severely bloodied. With recent elections close to 50 - 50, whoever makes the first moves will be demonized and will lose enough 'Hispanic' votes to lose all elections.
What other immigration group has ever so monopolized US immigration that Americans had to press 1 for English ??? (and had to foot the bills for translations/educations ??)
Mexico has had the same opportunities/natural resources to become as great as the USA, & yet they remain a third world county in most of their states.
Name any other 'head of state' that has ever marched into our White House, & made demands of our President, as to what he wanted for his illegal citizens here ?? Mexico also does not back our WOT, & *obviously* never did back the WOD.
Don't you think the USA might seem 'somewhat' racist, to the rest of the world, by always allowing mexico the largest share of *instant legals* ???
I've got mexicans in my family, they too are sick of this constant invasion from the south, crowded schools, crowded hospitals, & high taxes for all the freebies.
Let rich mexicans pay higher taxes, for a change, & build a middle class in their own country, for their own countrymen.
and I'm not racist, I've always said deport ALL illegals........we've got millions waiting in lines to come legally, the FIRST TIME.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.