Dear President Bush,
I have some real worries. Sure, you have my total support on the war on terror.
I'm afraid, however, that you are missing the boat on our BORDER issues. I feel that you are pandering to the Mexican vote and are totally disregarding the fiasco that is called the "US Border Patrol."
Seal our borders! Give our Patrol Agents the power they need to do their jobs! I just don't understand why you and Kerry won't address this important issue.
Sincerely,
Tombstone
President George W. Bush
President George W. Bush
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President George W. Bush
i'd say the biggest reason they won't address it is because they *can't* address it - not without a disaster for the US economy.
without the migrant farm workers, we'd be paying $10 for a carrot. $20 for a box of strawberries. $30 for a carton of mushrooms.
you get the picture. seal our borders, and our economy will collapse, period.
that's the view from this consiberal libservative.
without the migrant farm workers, we'd be paying $10 for a carrot. $20 for a box of strawberries. $30 for a carton of mushrooms.
you get the picture. seal our borders, and our economy will collapse, period.
that's the view from this consiberal libservative.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
President George W. Bush
anastrophe wrote: i'd say the biggest reason they won't address it is because they *can't* address it - not without a disaster for the US economy.
without the migrant farm workers, we'd be paying $10 for a carrot. $20 for a box of strawberries. $30 for a carton of mushrooms.
you get the picture. seal our borders, and our economy will collapse, period.
that's the view from this consiberal libservative.
I'll have to disagree with you about collapsing the economy due to expensive vegetables. If you want to talk about real costs look at these laws all signed into law:
1. Authorizing Full Federal Reimbursement to States for the Cost of Incarcerating Illegal Alien Felons (Amendment by Congressman Gallegly)
An amendment to H.R. 667, the Violent Criminals Incarceration Act of 1995, authorized $500 million appropriated in FY 1996, and $650 million from FY 1997 to FY 2000, for federal reimbursement to states for the cost of incarcerating illegal alien felons. California incurs over $350 million a year in such expenses. This authorization language was incorporated by the House into H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act, which was vetoed by President Clinton. It was later included in H.R. 3019, the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriation Act, which was signed into law on April 26, 1996.
2. Tripled Funding to States for Incarcerating Illegal Immigrant Felons
H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act provided $500 million to reimburse states for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons, a $375 million increase over the previous year. Although H.R. 2076 was vetoed, Congress included full funding for prison reimbursement in H.R. 3019, the Omnibus Appropriation Act. H.R. 3610, the FY 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, maintains the $500 million level achieved for FY 1996, as well as providing California with the flexibility to use other federal prison-building grants to cover the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons.
3. Increased Funding for Border Enforcement Operations
H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act, increased funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by $300 million, providing for 1,000 additional INS agents to be hired, trained and based on the border in 1996. In addition, 300 additional INS inspectors were funded in the bill. Although H.R. 2076 was vetoed by President Clinton, Congress included border control funding in H.R. 3019, the Omnibus Appropriation Act. H.R. 3610, the FY 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, further increases INS funding by $443 million, funds 1,100 new border patrol agents (400 more than requested by the President), targets $114 million to deport illegal aliens, adds 2,700 more detention beds to hold illegals until deportation, and targets $405 million to detain illegal immigrants that smuggle drugs.
Now, let's look at laws either vetoed by Clinton or killed by the Senate:
1. Establishing Federal Government Policy that Illegal Immigrants Do Not Qualify for Medicaid Health Care Benefits
The conference report on H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, included a provision specifically prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid health care benefits. States were given the flexibility to permit such immigrants, who would qualify for Medicaid benefits in the state, to receive emergency health care benefits under the program. A special $3.5 billion Medicaid fund would be established to reimburse hosptials for these health care services.
2. Allowing States to Decide Whether to Provide Free Public Education to Illegal Immigrants (Amendment by Congressman Gallegly)
As passed by the House, H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, included a provision to reverse the Supreme Court’s Plyler v. Doe decision making free public education an entitlement for illegal immigrants. The Plyler decision led District Court Judge Pfaelzer to strike down Proposition 187's bar on free education for illegal immigrants, which costs California $1.7 billion each year. After President Clinton threatened to veto any provision granting California the right to address this unfunded mandate, the provision was dropped.
3. Federal Reimbursement to States for the Cost of Health Care to Illegal Immigrants
The conference report on H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, was amended by the House to provide $3.5 billion over 5 years to states hit hard by emergency health care costs for illegal immigrants. California hospitals were expected to receive $1.7 billion of these illegal immigrant health care reimbursement funds. This funding, championed in the House Commerce Committee by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Imperial Beach), represents the first time that Congress provided any special assistance to the states for illegal immigrant health care costs.
So, American taxpayers - you are taking it in the shorts. Let's not even talk about these snippets:
Hot on the heels of the controversial new law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses, California lawmakers have sent two more bills to Governor Davis that aim to increase government benefits for illegals.
New data show that a large part of California's budget deficit can be attributed to the negative fiscal impact of immigration.
One of the bills would waive community college tuition fees for between 1,500 and 2,000 illegal immigrants. In other words, illegals get a free two-year college education courtesy of the California taxpayer, while citizens are forced to pay their own way. The other bill would allow illegal immigrants to use Mexican consular identification cards to gain access to various local government programs. Democratic State Senator Gilbert Cedillo, a strong proponent of the bills, says that the measures represent a "watershed year for California democracy."
He failed to acknowledge, however, that immigration is also partially responsible for the waterfall of red ink that is drowning the state.
Writing on VDARE.com, Ed Rubenstein, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants and a noted public policy statistician, has calculated the net cost of immigrants, both illegal and legal, on the California budget. According to Rubenstein, based on the array of state subsidy and spending programs, immigrants in California receive about $9.3 billion more in state expenditures than they pay in state taxes. He concludes that "nearly one-quarter (24.5 percent) of California's current $38 billion state budget deficit stems directly from immigration." Rubenstein's aggregate figures seem plausible when one considers the cost of immigration to specific government programs.
The illegal immigrant prison population in California is growing. From
1999-00 to 2002-03, the prison population of illegals in the state, based on inmate days in prison, grew by 31 percent. This increase resulted in a more than half-billion-dollar hit to the state budget in 2002-03.
Like the state, local governments are facing immigration-related fiscal nightmares. In May, the Los Angeles county health department estimated that it spends $340 million annually to treat illegal immigrants who seek emergency or follow-up care in county hospitals. Because of severe budget shortfalls, the county is cutting services and planning to close hospitals.
County supervisor Mike Antonovich warns, "With our health-care delivery system on the verge of collapse . . . the issue of illegal immigrants impacts our ability to balance our budget." The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that more than half a billion dollars in state General Fund money went to pay for illegal-immigrant health-care costs in 2002-03.
Need I say more?
without the migrant farm workers, we'd be paying $10 for a carrot. $20 for a box of strawberries. $30 for a carton of mushrooms.
you get the picture. seal our borders, and our economy will collapse, period.
that's the view from this consiberal libservative.
I'll have to disagree with you about collapsing the economy due to expensive vegetables. If you want to talk about real costs look at these laws all signed into law:
1. Authorizing Full Federal Reimbursement to States for the Cost of Incarcerating Illegal Alien Felons (Amendment by Congressman Gallegly)
An amendment to H.R. 667, the Violent Criminals Incarceration Act of 1995, authorized $500 million appropriated in FY 1996, and $650 million from FY 1997 to FY 2000, for federal reimbursement to states for the cost of incarcerating illegal alien felons. California incurs over $350 million a year in such expenses. This authorization language was incorporated by the House into H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act, which was vetoed by President Clinton. It was later included in H.R. 3019, the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriation Act, which was signed into law on April 26, 1996.
2. Tripled Funding to States for Incarcerating Illegal Immigrant Felons
H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act provided $500 million to reimburse states for the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons, a $375 million increase over the previous year. Although H.R. 2076 was vetoed, Congress included full funding for prison reimbursement in H.R. 3019, the Omnibus Appropriation Act. H.R. 3610, the FY 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, maintains the $500 million level achieved for FY 1996, as well as providing California with the flexibility to use other federal prison-building grants to cover the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons.
3. Increased Funding for Border Enforcement Operations
H.R. 2076, the FY 1996 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act, increased funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) by $300 million, providing for 1,000 additional INS agents to be hired, trained and based on the border in 1996. In addition, 300 additional INS inspectors were funded in the bill. Although H.R. 2076 was vetoed by President Clinton, Congress included border control funding in H.R. 3019, the Omnibus Appropriation Act. H.R. 3610, the FY 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act, further increases INS funding by $443 million, funds 1,100 new border patrol agents (400 more than requested by the President), targets $114 million to deport illegal aliens, adds 2,700 more detention beds to hold illegals until deportation, and targets $405 million to detain illegal immigrants that smuggle drugs.
Now, let's look at laws either vetoed by Clinton or killed by the Senate:
1. Establishing Federal Government Policy that Illegal Immigrants Do Not Qualify for Medicaid Health Care Benefits
The conference report on H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, included a provision specifically prohibiting illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid health care benefits. States were given the flexibility to permit such immigrants, who would qualify for Medicaid benefits in the state, to receive emergency health care benefits under the program. A special $3.5 billion Medicaid fund would be established to reimburse hosptials for these health care services.
2. Allowing States to Decide Whether to Provide Free Public Education to Illegal Immigrants (Amendment by Congressman Gallegly)
As passed by the House, H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act, included a provision to reverse the Supreme Court’s Plyler v. Doe decision making free public education an entitlement for illegal immigrants. The Plyler decision led District Court Judge Pfaelzer to strike down Proposition 187's bar on free education for illegal immigrants, which costs California $1.7 billion each year. After President Clinton threatened to veto any provision granting California the right to address this unfunded mandate, the provision was dropped.
3. Federal Reimbursement to States for the Cost of Health Care to Illegal Immigrants
The conference report on H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, was amended by the House to provide $3.5 billion over 5 years to states hit hard by emergency health care costs for illegal immigrants. California hospitals were expected to receive $1.7 billion of these illegal immigrant health care reimbursement funds. This funding, championed in the House Commerce Committee by Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Imperial Beach), represents the first time that Congress provided any special assistance to the states for illegal immigrant health care costs.
So, American taxpayers - you are taking it in the shorts. Let's not even talk about these snippets:
Hot on the heels of the controversial new law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses, California lawmakers have sent two more bills to Governor Davis that aim to increase government benefits for illegals.
New data show that a large part of California's budget deficit can be attributed to the negative fiscal impact of immigration.
One of the bills would waive community college tuition fees for between 1,500 and 2,000 illegal immigrants. In other words, illegals get a free two-year college education courtesy of the California taxpayer, while citizens are forced to pay their own way. The other bill would allow illegal immigrants to use Mexican consular identification cards to gain access to various local government programs. Democratic State Senator Gilbert Cedillo, a strong proponent of the bills, says that the measures represent a "watershed year for California democracy."
He failed to acknowledge, however, that immigration is also partially responsible for the waterfall of red ink that is drowning the state.
Writing on VDARE.com, Ed Rubenstein, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants and a noted public policy statistician, has calculated the net cost of immigrants, both illegal and legal, on the California budget. According to Rubenstein, based on the array of state subsidy and spending programs, immigrants in California receive about $9.3 billion more in state expenditures than they pay in state taxes. He concludes that "nearly one-quarter (24.5 percent) of California's current $38 billion state budget deficit stems directly from immigration." Rubenstein's aggregate figures seem plausible when one considers the cost of immigration to specific government programs.
The illegal immigrant prison population in California is growing. From
1999-00 to 2002-03, the prison population of illegals in the state, based on inmate days in prison, grew by 31 percent. This increase resulted in a more than half-billion-dollar hit to the state budget in 2002-03.
Like the state, local governments are facing immigration-related fiscal nightmares. In May, the Los Angeles county health department estimated that it spends $340 million annually to treat illegal immigrants who seek emergency or follow-up care in county hospitals. Because of severe budget shortfalls, the county is cutting services and planning to close hospitals.
County supervisor Mike Antonovich warns, "With our health-care delivery system on the verge of collapse . . . the issue of illegal immigrants impacts our ability to balance our budget." The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that more than half a billion dollars in state General Fund money went to pay for illegal-immigrant health-care costs in 2002-03.
Need I say more?
Please use the "contact us" button if you need to contact a ForumGarden admin.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
President George W. Bush
uh, well, that vdare.com site is a pretty pickle. i still haven't figured out whether they're white supremacists or whether they write huge tracts that are all tongue-in-cheek. suffice to say, if we 'consider the source', i'm not inclined to take their word for it on how much immigrants use in public services. i think the figures are wildly inflated. but that's just a guess, not based on facts.
nevertheless, without migrant farm workers breaking their backs for what - 1/4th minimum wage, if that? - california's agricultural economy would be priced out of existence. i don't think anyone can rationally dispute that. it's a bizarre, twisted system - illegals are the only ones willing to do the work for the incredibly low wages. but they're illegal and shouldn't be here. and without them we'd be in a major pickle. but you can't just make them legal by fiat - fact is, if they did that, they'd suddenly have to be payed minimum wage, since they'd be legals and could demand the legal minimum - so we'd be back to square one.
nevertheless, without migrant farm workers breaking their backs for what - 1/4th minimum wage, if that? - california's agricultural economy would be priced out of existence. i don't think anyone can rationally dispute that. it's a bizarre, twisted system - illegals are the only ones willing to do the work for the incredibly low wages. but they're illegal and shouldn't be here. and without them we'd be in a major pickle. but you can't just make them legal by fiat - fact is, if they did that, they'd suddenly have to be payed minimum wage, since they'd be legals and could demand the legal minimum - so we'd be back to square one.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President George W. Bush
Nothing has changed in four years. :yh_frustr
President George W. Bush
What ever happened to ‘Manifest Destiny’?
When did American become so afraid of everything and everyone around them?
Why do you always feel so threatened?
What happened to the land of the ‘Brave’ and the ‘Free’?
You have imprisoned yourself within your boarders and have become afraid of the world around you.
When did American become so afraid of everything and everyone around them?
Why do you always feel so threatened?
What happened to the land of the ‘Brave’ and the ‘Free’?
You have imprisoned yourself within your boarders and have become afraid of the world around you.
President George W. Bush
Accountable;857671 wrote: Nothing has changed in four years. :yh_frustr
That's not true. The price of oil is going through the roof. Your economy is in danger of meltdown. Your national debt is rising
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
almost 4,000 soldiers are dead and some 30,000 wounded. You have a hereditary presidency-eight years of hilary and maybe chelsea will be able to take over.
That's not true. The price of oil is going through the roof. Your economy is in danger of meltdown. Your national debt is rising
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
almost 4,000 soldiers are dead and some 30,000 wounded. You have a hereditary presidency-eight years of hilary and maybe chelsea will be able to take over.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President George W. Bush
gmc;858480 wrote: That's not true. The price of oil is going through the roof. Your economy is in danger of meltdown. Your national debt is rising
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
almost 4,000 soldiers are dead and some 30,000 wounded. You have a hereditary presidency-eight years of hilary and maybe chelsea will be able to take over.
ThanksIfeelbetternow.
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html
almost 4,000 soldiers are dead and some 30,000 wounded. You have a hereditary presidency-eight years of hilary and maybe chelsea will be able to take over.
ThanksIfeelbetternow.
President George W. Bush
Accountable;858582 wrote: ThanksIfeelbetternow.
Cheer up. The US is a liberal democracy. All it takes is enough pissed off voters to sort out the politicians and remind them where the real power lies and that's not with any establishment or corporate lobby.
As an outsider I am curious to see what will happen with the democratic primary. I have the impression that Obama will win the vote but the party establishment will go with hilary. Is it completely impossible for someone rto stand for president without a party machine behind them?
Alternative politics UK style
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?page=manifesto-proposals
Frightening how sensible some of them seem compared to the mainstream parties isn't it?
Cheer up. The US is a liberal democracy. All it takes is enough pissed off voters to sort out the politicians and remind them where the real power lies and that's not with any establishment or corporate lobby.
As an outsider I am curious to see what will happen with the democratic primary. I have the impression that Obama will win the vote but the party establishment will go with hilary. Is it completely impossible for someone rto stand for president without a party machine behind them?
Alternative politics UK style
http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?page=manifesto-proposals
Frightening how sensible some of them seem compared to the mainstream parties isn't it?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
President George W. Bush
gmc;858707 wrote: As an outsider I am curious to see what will happen with the democratic primary. I have the impression that Obama will win the vote but the party establishment will go with hilary. Is it completely impossible for someone rto stand for president without a party machine behind them?
We're a population of over 300 million. There's signatures to be got to show support, and funding, ....... it's possible, but you'd need millions from somewhere. Billionaire Ross Perot did it on his own, though.
We're a population of over 300 million. There's signatures to be got to show support, and funding, ....... it's possible, but you'd need millions from somewhere. Billionaire Ross Perot did it on his own, though.
President George W. Bush
I saw Hilary clinton on CNN saying if the democrats had the same system in the primaries as he republicans she would be the candidate by now.
I read somewhere that the democrats are using a form of proportional representation which is why the selection is so proving to be such a fight. But what are the differences?
I read somewhere that the democrats are using a form of proportional representation which is why the selection is so proving to be such a fight. But what are the differences?