In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 357
Online now 573 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Thought you guys might be interested. Link at the link.
the alternative USC news source: for the original, the suppressed, the radical, and the funky
“Close tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” Reagan vowed.
Bleeding heart liberalism at its best (worst) ...
Cry Havoc; and let slip the dogs of war!
Perhaps you're right. Treating innocent people that work hard and succeed with dignity, regardless of national origin is a liberal thing, and not caring about human beings because they had the misfortune to be born somewhere else and brought here at the age of one is a conservative thing.
Perhaps you're right. Subsidizing illegal immigration so that we can have 20 million low skilled workers come from one country, not integrate, and raise numerous children that are currently the least successful demographic by unwed mother birth rates, drop out rates, and crime rates because of language/education/cultural barriers so that we can put 60 million more people on the government dole and bankrupt the country for good is a much better idea.
Yeah - lets destroy our country so that we can subsidize mexico's crappy government and ensuing poverty problem. They are the 10th largest GDP in the world. They have NO excuse for their lackluster performance. But the people don't revolt - they come here - and then wave a mexican flag in our faces while demanding more free things for their children.
The math doesn't work. The lack of assimilation doesn't work. Sorry - but her parents did that to her - not the US Government.
This post was edited by phear_SC 14 months ago
You're right. Her mother (not parents; if you read the article you will notice that her mother left Mexico partially because she was getting beaten by her father) did that to her. Do you believe she is better off here or in the alternative life in Mexico?
Your typical conservative argument does not play here. You are imputing facts to this girl based on her race even though they are inconsistent with her actual facts (frequently called bigotry). This girl did well enough in school to earn a scholarship to USC. She is doing everything right, rather than everything wrong as you assume. It is well documented that foreigners that are well educated contribute to our economy, not detract from it. What evidence do you have that her mom demanded anything for free? I know. You are conservative. You do not need any evidence to believe the worst of an immigrant.
You have a choice to make - do we allow people to come here illegally or not? Do we give them entitlements they didn't pay for or not? Are we going to be honest with ourselves about the statistical outcomes of children from mexico that come here wedded to low income, low education, parents or not? How trite that you use the common liberal comeback of screaming "RACISM!!!!!!" at everything a conservative says. I'm simply working with the known fact set. You've already demonstrated an embarrassing grasp of mathematical concepts (that your other quantitatively incapable liberal cronies joined in to call me names doesn't change the fact that you clearly don't grasp econometrics in any meaningful way). That I can live with the unpleasant realities of having to make hard choices doesn't make me less thoughtful, it makes me more thoughtful. The country cannot bare the economic burden and it's unfair to grant individual exceptions. For every example like the girl in the story there are 20 negative examples. So do we legislate for the 90% outcome or the 10% outcome given what's on the line? For me, it's not a hard choice. If we can build in some mechanisms to save the deserving - then so be it - but can't you just hear the liberals now saying, "Why should we only pick and choose who we keep!? It isn't fair!" and we're right back to letting them all in, with entitlements, while liberals pretend that taxing the rich will somehow pay for the mess we're creating.
Imagine if USC football worked that way - and we just added another 30 below average (not even average) players to the team without increasing revenues or budget. Do you think the team would play better with less resources per player or worse? Sure, it would be great for those 30 players, but the team would go to crap and ultimately everyone would be worse off. You don't need inspector gadget for that one ...
Take a trip to Santa Ana, Bell, or East Los Angeles sometime. Tell me if it's a nice place.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by phear_SC 14 months ago
Oh, and as for this notion that I hate all immigrants because I am a conservative. During a recent conversation with other people who know how to do math my answer to the glut of engineers in this country was to go to India and grab 1 million well educated, english speaking, highly technical, competent, engineers with a cultural orientation that puts a high value on family and entrepreneurship. EVERYONE would be better off in that scenario and, call me crazy, but immigration should benefit the immigrants AND the host country. I LOVE immigration and diversity - but we need actual DIVERSITY and we need to be selective and thoughtful about making sure we balance humanitarian immigration with immigration that's good for the long term health of this country. We don't need a single country dominating immigration with low skilled workers who bring very little value to this country.
You are missing the point. You are arguing by statisically evaluating all Mexican immigrants. That is exactly what the writer is asking to stop. She wants us to look at each person individually. Perhaps we do not want a large amount of immigrants because they are uneducated and unproductive, but that is a different argument. This is not about a percentage of Mexicans. It is about one specific Mexican. She is a Mexican that is likely to be productive to our society and not need the assitance that you do not like. I.e., we should not judge this girl by her national origin. We should judge her on her own merits.
You have openly stated that you have come from a miserable background. Would it be fair to judge your potential productivity by looking at your parents? Of course not. Statistically, you were not likely to turn out well. However, you overcame the odds and have done well. You deserve to be judged (e.g. for job, credit, etc.) based on your merits, not on where you come from.
I agree that we should prioritize allowing in well educated people with skills that we need. I would get rid of the lottery system and allow anyone that gets a degree here in a needed field and a clean criminal record to stay. It is crazy to boot those with needed skills. However, the girl writing the article is not unskilled labor. She is going to USC.
Seems to have provoked a good debate, so not sure why the thread got downvoted. Ho hum.
Why is it always free marketeers who think all factors of production should be mobile other than labor? Seems like they think all markets are self-correcting other than the one for labor...
If you got rid of entitlements I'd be much less worried about the labor component. But we have a service economy what are we going to do with this labor?
Who is going to pay for and set agreed upon standards (good luck with that) to personally review every case? Do you see the problem here? We absolutely CANNOT afford the entitlements if we make every illegal legal. So who decides who makes them legal, on what basis, and how do they prove that basis? I'm not arguing against keeping skilled, non-criminals, that are a net plus to society. I'm simply saying that the manpower to sift them out isn't there - nor would the left tolerate that approach even if it was. So, it's going to come down to "legalize all" or "legalize none". If we legalize all - we can't pay the bills. Period. I am NOT racist because I can do math ...
Put the burden on the applicant. It is much easier and less time consuming to read an application (or have a computer process those without problems) than to deport someone. Math is not the issue that makes one bigoted. Assuming something about an individual, despite it being manifestly false, because he or she is a member of a certain race makes one bigoted.
This post was edited by Morethanafan 14 months ago
Well normally excess labor pushes wages down, which might align incentives for certain types of cheap manufacturing. Labor leaving for the US makes it scarce in Mexico, pushing wages up. You know, the old 'the market takes care of it, why should the government intervene?' argument.
They have a points system in many countries in terms of immigration. Then there are guest worker programs for some less-skilled workers. What is not sustainable are laws that don't work, that promote inhumane outcomes, and don't help either people or the economy.
Thank you for making every single liberal stereotype come true, singlehandedly, in one thread. For God sake there are even bumper stickers about this ... More intellectual dishonesty from you, as usual. And, here's the homerun I've been waiting to hit you with since you went with the liberal bread and butter play of "shout racism". My birth surname was a derivative of Escobar. Now tell me how I'm racist against hispanics again? My half black sister I have legal custody of and my hawaiin/mexican cousins might also be interested in how I hate/judge people that aren't white. You think that would have made the wedding where one of my polynesian first cousins married a black guy a bit awkward - but, hey, you're the digitial Doctor Phil, so I'm sure you have some hasty generalization for that one as well. We all can't wait to hear your next colossal blunder.
Name 3 benefits to current US citizens from the current amnesty proposal.
Those brought into the workforce don't undercut those making low wages anymore.
The law no longer looks like an ass in that we know we could never deport millions of people, so we no longer live in some Kafkaesque farce where we pretend we might.
The crime and cartels that are often associated with people trafficking have one less huge source of revenue.
It is not at all uncommon for Hispanics (as well as other ethnic groups) to look down on relatively newly arrived people of the same ethnic group. Many Jews that were in the U.S. for generations looked down on Eastern European Jews that came later a few decades ago. Earlier, I mentioned national origin. In this post (the one you jumped on) I was not as exact. Based on your situation/race, it would be hard to argue that you are bigoted against Hispanics. It is not hard to argue that you are bigoted against those born in Mexico. You imputed facts to this girl, that were contrary to known actual facts about her, because of where she was born. That is a definition of bigotry.
I want point out something else. Let us assume that she was a poor, uneducated migrant worker and the discussion was not about her, but Mexicans as a group to get rid of the real point of the article and make your argument directly on point. Your position seems to be contrary to your position on abortion. Your position is that we must consider the economic cost to the U.S. of allowing in uneducated, unskilled labor and that the cost outweighs the human benefit of helping people that are in horrible situations likely through no fault of their own. Many conservatives want to limit abortions to the extent possible. They would outlaw it if possible, but if not possible at least stop the government from funding it for the poor. That at least limits it. How is the one year old that comes here illegally any more likely to be a burden on society than the baby that is born because the mother cannot afford an abortion? Why should the fetus be saved from death but the baby not be saved from a life of suffering?
I will add to what you already wrote:
They then pay taxes.
They have an incentive to do whatever is required to gain citizenship (e.g. join the military, get a college education, etc.).
It saves resources trying to deport them.
It allows them to earn a living making crime less likely.
If I read the article, which I did, how can you possibly make the argument that I was making assumptions about her when I already had the facts? Do you even listen to yourself? I ALREADY HAD THE FACTS that were in the article. Once again your inability to draw the correct inference is staggering. I've rarely seen someone so frequently build an argument from the incorrect conclusion (which is often chosen, to my eye, based on whatever is the absolutely least charitable interpretation/understanding of someone's remarks). Everything from you is a straw man. I even went on to correct your opinion and you simply ignored it - instead assuming I was racist. Now that I've blown that argument out of the water - do you stop for even a moment to consider what can only be a flaw in your process given the absurd outcome it lead to? No. You just try to find another way to call me a bigot (and, even if I was, it would have ZERO impact on the merit of my argument: See "ad hominem" for more detail).
My comments were applied to low skilled immigrants in general. You keep calling it bigotry because I know what the data says. What am I supposed to do here? If I asked you, "Which ethnic group is most overepresented in prison" and you knew the answer - would that make you a bigot because you happened to know statistical data about an ethnic group? Of course not. So why does the fact that I am aware of the economic factors and resulting statistics of mexican immigration into this country make me a bigot. One is not a biggot simply by virtue of their awareness of the facts.
Your argument and statements about me are patently absurd.
Here's another dagger: One of my best friends from MIT was born in Mexico. I was in discussions with him to run one of his real estate funds before he tragically passed away. When he passed away, I was on the alum committee that helped raise $25,000+ to create a memorial for him. Where was my bigotry then? Are you telling me I didn't care for my friend? Maybe I only pretended to! That must be it! Or, how about the 50 some odd hispanic women I've dated. Some of them were born in Mexico and studying in the US on a visa. Was I bigoted then?
You're a complete and total clown, bro.
A great example of my bigotry ... I was also the one who take the day off of work to call every single member of our class to let them know the bad news the day Ricardo passed away.
You know, you really are a spiteful piece of garbage.
MIT School of Architecture + Planning, SA+P, MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, architecture, design, city planning, urban studies, real estate development, housing affordability, media laboratory, media lab, visual studies, visual arts, architectural design, urban planning, media studies, art and technology, building technology, urban design, media technology, computation, city design and development, media arts and sciences, history and theory of art and architecture, environmental policy, Islamic architecture, housing, community development, economic development, international development, regional planning, transportation planning and policy, urban information systems, education, research, admissions, graduate study, undergraduate study, masters degree, PhD
Another girl I dated whose parents immigrated to this country from mexico and El Salvador.
MORE BIGOTRY FOR ME!
I dated both of those girls for at least a year.
My half polynesian 1st cousin and her black husband. Oh my bigotry against my own blood continues!!!!!!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports