"Predisposed." You're broadcasting much more attitude than proof of good research. That word is more often associated with disease, moral decay, and ill intent. Show me an ethnic identity without any effect on background. Blacks are much more likely to be forced into low-income, low-infrastructure neighborhoods. Those who aren't, are more likely to also be struggling to deal with the issues of acquaintances who are.
So they have statistics, which you offer above. Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.
Actually, that was bait. Bait you took eagerly and turned against me. I didn't say what the statistics were, who had them or who they favored. So here's the dirty. 70 percent of all burglary arrests are of whites, 28 percent of blacks. Two-thirds of those arrests are over the age of eighteen and 90 percent of them are male. Ofcourse these numbers DO come from the UCR and they admit to thier own inaccuracy and lack of accountability for crimes that occur without arrests. Happy yet?
Beats me; I don't pay them either. Perhaps they could choose a better method of surveying. I've already gone into that. However, if there's no reasonable guess now, then how can you be clear on how many to multiply across those social services you claim are being used either? You were arguing it cost too much originally. Although overall I honestly think you would rather just scream moral injustice, and never mind the numbers.
Because there is a clear estimate of how much the cost will increase. There are many figures floating around but the general consensus seems to be somewhere in the 7 million to 20 million range. (CNN's Lou Dobbs, Tuscon sector Border Patrol union local 2544, John McCain, Sam Zamarripa, Time Magazine) They all seem to agree that the number is increasing every day though. Is this the part where I'm supposed to scream moral injustice? Do I hear an untrustworthy/invalid source claim brewing?
I don't see the difference between your first set of scare quotes and the second one. "Victim" which you disbelieve was such, or another of the same. You're talking about anything but the the inequality that preceded the civil rights movement and still hasn't been completely pushed aside. And much of it affects immigrants in similar ways.
"The race card." You do tons of smoke and no substance with this line. First, you try to say it's racist if I point out that inequality has long existed and continues to. Now, you want to make it unacceptable for liberals to talk about race again. As if racial inequality were some big game (playing cards) and for you, it apparently started with the civil rights movement for no good reason.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where African-Americans were still picking cotton in fields for a meal a day and a shoddy roof over thier heads and white people regarding them as property was still the status norm. Last I checked you couldn't do that anymore, and I and my parents never owned slaves. So how long is that going to be held over our heads? How many more generations down the line will "I'm sorry for the mistakes of my ancestors" be enough? Oh, wait. It won't be. Not until every person of colored skin is in a $250k home that they didn't have to pay for with a steady income from a white collar job. You get right to funding that, too.
I really hope the day comes where a white male gets fired by a black supervisor and there's a civil rights lawsuit over it. I wonder how much controversy that will bring?
Japan is treated as a less racially diverse society, and they have historically been infamous for keeping people on the job without function. Show us that White networks don't do something similar. Or perhaps, give preferential access for good old boys to transfer.
Did you really just tell me other countries do it too, so that makes it okay?
With the possible exception of local roads, I'm skeptical that they consistently show up to utilize all of the services you might list. Court and ER without paperwork to count who uses it?
Immigrants, illegal or not, have a right to leagal counsel, and to competent council in immigration court. It falls under the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our justice system.
"Roughly half of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. don't have health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group. Like others who can't afford medical care, illegal immigrants tend to flock to hospital emergency rooms, which, under a 1986 law, can't turn people away, even if they can't pay. Emergency-room visits, where treatment costs are much higher than in clinics, jumped 32% nationally between 1996 and 2006, the latest data available." -The Wall Street Journal
Hop some threads and if you prefer, deny that there's a whopping chunk of money to be saved on tax and health care reform.
Oh, the data's out there so I have to go search for it? Double Standard much?
So they have statistics, which you offer above. Except you won't, because you know there really is no good evidence there.
It does not retract that earlier thing about freedom of representation and all created equal. The law is called an equal opportunity law. We're still working on that equal part. It sounds to me like you're now arguing specifically in the direction of a land where opportunity should not be equal... After all, if it's not guaranteed... What follows? Women were not originally guaranteed the vote either. Why, that'll put those single mothers back in their place so Reaganomics can cut welfare again!
Opportunity was once expressed to me as a moment where preparedness meets luck. Everyone has a near certainty of education, at scholarships, reimbursment or financial aid for higher education. Performance history usually is a good indicator that investors and donators act on. These resources are nearly provided. Preparedness you can guarantee. Luck you can not. And even with that door opened, some choose not to step through. Something happened that put that single mother where she was. It was a choice.
I'd ask according to whom, which companies, and are they the sort that (say, Arizona) immigrants have access to based on wealth, documentation, gender performance, and social networks. If I were to take up your "I saw one" way of evidence, well I've been denied a job clearly based upon the length of my hair.
-The Wall Street Journal ("The Tattooed Executive," Mielikki Org, Thursday August 28, 2003) Didn't mention whether or not it was a company accessable by immigrants. I suppose that would require finding out which company it is and giving them a call.
There's a little blame to go around, sure. But they weren't all sitting in the Executive Branch calling themselves "the Decider" to make their case, requesting and presenting as fact faulty selections from the intelligence community, and shouting to the people about mushroom clouds. I put more of the culpability with the office of the president on certain matters like these, where it's that job in particular to show better judgment.
Were this any other poster I would probably say "yes, and I won't go over an itemized list over all the lies Obama has told" either, but I'm making a special exception for you.
1. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 "We will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all." -Barack Obama's Comprehensive Tax Plan
President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to end taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 has fallen off the radar. It wasn't part of the tax cuts in the economic stimulus bill, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It wasn't in Obama's first budget outline, which was approved by Congress on April 2, 2009. And it's not part of any proposed legislation that can be found. (White House, Remarks by the President on taxes , April 15, 2009. Social Security Administration, Economic Recovery One-Time Payments Information. Office of Budget and Management, Budget Documents for Fiscal Year 2010. Office of Budget and Management, Summary Tables)
2. End no-bid contracts above $25,000 "We will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid." -Obama's Plan for America: Fiscal
Indeed, since Obama took office, none of the instructions from the White House's Office of Management and Budget -- which serves as the administration's controller -- has put any limits on the value of no-bid contracts. The guidance from the president and OMB appears to acknowledge that federal agencies may not always bid a project competitively, and instead has encouraged managers to do more to increase competition among contractors.
There is a paper trail:
In a memo March 4, 2009, President Obama ordered the OMB to develop rules to "govern the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and to maximize the use of full and open competition and other competitive procurement processes." But no mention of any $25,000 rule.
The OMB followed up with a July 29, 2009, memo ordering agencies to cut by 10 percent the total dollars awarded via three types of so-called "risky" contracts, including no-bid or single-bid contracts. Again, nothing on a $25,000 rule.
Then, on Oct. 27, 2009, the OMB's Office of Federal Procurement issued guidelines for agencies that asked procurement officers to find more ways to use competitive contracts. But it didn't mention the $25,000 rule that candidate Obama had promised either.
3. Allow imported prescription drugs "We will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S." -Obama health care plan
But such a provision was not included in the final health care law that passed both chambers of Congress and was signed by the president.
The motivation for the promise came from an existing trend of Americans crossing the Canadian border to buy cheaper prescription drugs. Yet for the most part, it remains illegal for Americans to buy prescription drugs there -- for safety reasons, the Food and Drug Administration says.
But in the wake of negotiations with the prescription drug industry -- one of the first big health industry players to support the White House's health care reform effort -- Obama's drug importation promise faded into the background. Now, with passage, it's officially off the table.
I suppose I should stop now. I mean, the man DID make substantial progress with putting a leash on the credit industry, expand loans for small businesses and brought some transparency to health care providers (not that he's done as much for the administration.)
That lovely undercurrent of the right doesn't get what it wants, then there will be violence? Sounds like a good reason to crack down harder on firearms to me! A little more seriously though, about now? I'd worry more about mass protests for bailing out Wall Street too liberally, stalling in Congress on financial reform (and possibly health care), and opposition to unemployment benefits. It could be kind of hard to pass all that off as a "liberal" fillibuster.
You are consistant with your tactics if nothing else. I was referring to the people who won't be getting thier government handouts because the system is overloaded. They'll be the ones rioting. You won't have to worry about the gun owners. They'll likely hunt for food if the need presents itself, and protect what they own from looters. Congress is currently intentionally avoiding hot topics like financial reform because elections are right around the corner. With it, they can claim the republicans are stonewalling them and present them as an evil. Otherwise, all Obama has for the campaigning he's doing is democrats = good.
I have some issues with ICE actually.. But weren't you the one saying if the feds won't act, it is up to the states? It sounds like you want the feds to trust the states to follow the spirit of federal laws and let them have at it... Until you determine that the locals are not in compliance of (whichever law you put first, say immigration at the border versus social service provision) and then you want the feds to take over again? Weren't you just blaming the left for making conditions that encourage trigger-happy people to play chicken?
Federal law criminalizes being in the country illegally; Arizona’s law mirrors federal. The Arizona law simply allows local law enforcement to enforce what is already federal law. The only way the government may restrict a state's law-making power is ultimatums regarding funding, or the law is declared unconstitutional in The Supreme Court. ICE is a FEDERAL organization. Arizona's police force is a state organization. Federal agencies have requested cooperation from local authorities in the past to aid in investigations. Now, the reverse is true. Arizona's law enforcement will be charged with identifying and prosecuting illegal aliens and ICE doesn't want to do the deportation on the grounds that any illegal alien identified by Arizona's new proceedure has been identified unconstitutionally. Okay, so the reverse would be true if the state organization could go to the federal organization and expect help.