The President shows defiance to the

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 10:00:28 GMT -5 jkapp said:

>>(a) I commented on the costs of deporting a non-citizen and educating a citizen. I didn't say anything about the costs of educating a non-citizen. Now that you have brought it up, do you have any evidence to support your claim about differential educational costs? <<

Differential education costs? Children of illegals get educated on our dime - they are not supposed to even be there. More kids means more supplies, teachers, equipment, ESL aids/teachers, etc - all paid by LEGAL residents for the benefit of ILLEGAL ones. The cost per pupil can range anywhere form $7k to $20k+ per year, depending on the location. That's a base rate of $84k for 12 years...far outpacing even the highest deportation cost of $24k.

Then you must factor in the children of illegals flashing La Raza Nation gang signs, and causing death and destruction within our neighborhoods, and ending up in prison, costing us all more in police and prison costs - which far outweigh a one-time cost of $12,500-$24k+. When we're having to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year to house a criminal illegal in our prison system, it kind of makes that one time deportation cost seem pretty reasonable...

You seem very angry. That's probably why your argument is so irrational.

My challenge to zib was to demonstrate why it would cost more to educate Billy (who was born in the U.S. to undocumented parents) vs. Timmy (who was born in the U.S. to U.S. born parents). You are correct that having more kids enrolled in schools costs more money. That is true no matter who is having babies. But you haven't shown any differences in educational costs for Billy vs. Timmy.

To your somewhat out of left field point about gangs and crime... if Billy (reminder: born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, see also: citizen) or Timmy joins a gang and engages in criminal activity, they may be sent to juvenile detention or prison. Both of which are more costly than a public education (3-4 times more costly per our favorite conservative news outlet: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/14/states-spend-times-incarcerating-educating-studies-say-464156987/)

We should definitely try to keep our kids in school and out of gangs.

Now, if the gang members are themselves undocumented, THOSE are the people that the feds say we should deport. If there is evidence of criminal activity, everyone agrees it is worth the $23k to deport them. So, I'm not really sure what the guys in Arizona would have to complain about in that instance.

[Deleted]

The same thing that happens to you if you are pulled over and fail to produce your license and registration? We give you a chance to prove you have those documents before we put you on a one-way bus to Mexico.

[Phoenix84]

"Within hours of the Supreme Court on Monday upholding of Arizona's requirement that police officers verify with federal authorities the immigration status of people they stop if suspected of being in the United States illegally, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo telling agents not to take action unless the people are criminals, have recently arrived or pose a threat to national security."

So let me get this straight, now not only are we not going to deport young people (effectivly creating the dream act without congressional approval) we're also not going to "take action" against illegals unless they are criminals or pose a threat to national security (effectivly creating amnesty) also without congressional approval?

Is my assessment accurate because if it is I'm pissed off.

"That's a lot of money to deport your average, otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrant."

Law abiding except for the part where, you know, they entered this country without following immigration law. But I guess that's not a crime to you is it?

[Deleted]

Good Lord, that's twice now people have missed the meaning of the word "otherwise"

[formerroomate99]

Or do you mean children born in the U.S.? It doesn't cost any more to educate those CITIZENS than it does to educate your kids or my kids or your neighbor's kids...

It does cost more to educate a child who shows up at school not speaking a word of English, something that is rather common among certain immigrant groups. And hispanics in general aren't exactly known for valuing education, so having a large population of kids who come from homes where education is not valued makes everything more expensive.

[Phoenix84]

"Good Lord, that's twice now people have missed the meaning of the word "otherwise""

Okay, so why don't we choose to not presecute bank robbers or murdurers or child molestors because after all, outside of their respective crimes, they're law abiding citizens? Do we only punish criminals guilty of two crimes or more now? Does everyone get to commit one crime of their choosing without consequences?

[Deleted]

Why? Because we have cut the language budgets so harshly at our schools? That seems like it should bother parents more than it does.

And by more, do you mean more than the costs to educate a gifted child in a language immersion program? More than the costs to educate a child with an intellectual disability who requires a full time aide? More than the costs to educate a kid with diabetes who needs the school to have a nurse on staff? More than the costs to educate a low-income child who needs a tutor to catch up on reading because he grew up in a house with no books?

Or do you just mean more than the average middle class kid from the suburbs?

[Deleted]

The schools in S. Ca. are crumbling under the weight of too many non-English speaking children and not enough funds. Yes, we educate the children of the poor and it's a huge burden to the schools.

The cost of illegal immigration is unevenly shared across the states. It's quite a burden in the border states.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 10:26:23 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Crafty...I'm reading 12K to arrest, detain and deport. Where are you seeing 23K?

seatoshiningsea.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/blog-post-how-much-does-it-cost-to-deport-1-illegal-immigrant-12500/

"However, a 2010 report by Center for American Progress and Rob Paral and Associates took a close look at all the budget appropriations for ICE and broke down the costs per person for each one of the four stages of deportation process: apprehension, detention, legal proceeding and transportation. The whopping cost of deportation per person that they came up with is $23,480."

Read more: articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-30/news/31004595_1_deportation-kumar-kibble-rob-paral#ixzz1z0YwgqEH

I realize it isn't a wordpress blog...

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 10:25:16 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Or do you mean children born in the U.S.? It doesn't cost any more to educate those CITIZENS than it does to educate your kids or my kids or your neighbor's kids...

It does cost more to educate a child who shows up at school not speaking a word of English, something that is rather common among certain immigrant groups. And hispanics in general aren't exactly known for valuing education, so having a large population of kids who come from homes where education is not valued makes everything more expensive.

Oh goodness, I was focusing on the first sentence of your reply. I missed how completely racist the second piece was.

Please, tell me more about what you think that Hispanics think...

Don't worry... you don't need a source.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 7:52:24 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Darn! I must be at my two thread limit.....
Anyone want to post the Tea Party victory in Oklahoma over the Republican incumbant for me?

In the article, it states the incumbant pissed off the Optometrists in the state.
I never knew they were such a huge votong block
I will even give you the source.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/27/tea-party-favorite-bridenstine-defeats-incumbent-sullivan-in-oklahoma-house/

you never knew the TP was a big voting block in Oklahoma? seriously?

[swamp]

My challenge to zib was to demonstrate why it would cost more to educate Billy (who was born in the U.S. to undocumented parents) vs. Timmy (who was born in the U.S. to U.S. born parents). You are correct that having more kids enrolled in schools costs more money. That is true no matter who is having babies. But you haven't shown any differences in educational costs for Billy vs. Timmy.

Billy is probably in an ESL class and will need remedial service until he is proficient in English, thereby costing more. Timmy may or may not need remedial services and probably already speaks English. Maybe badly, but it's his first language.

For all those who want to deport everyone, don't you think they're just going to come back and we'll have to spend the money all over again?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 9:23:20 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Yes, it does cost more to educate non-citizens btw. But that shouldn't be an issue because we shouldn't be doing it period.

shouldn't be doing what? most of these kids are citizens.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 9:26:26 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:19:50 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

"...The same costs are associated with deporting children born outside of the U.S. as adults born outside of the U.S..."

Children born outside the US and here illegally need to be in schools in their countries of origin - not my country - and not on my nickel.

"...to educate those CITIZENS..."

Oh, hurry the day when a more conservative Supreme Court re-interprets the 14th Amendment in order to eliminate Citizenship (going forward) for the children born in this country of Illegal Aliens; thereby eliminating the problem of so-called Anchor Babies.

anchor babies, as you call them, are actually a very old concept. it is the way citizenship has worked in other countries for hundreds and hundreds of years. the 14th amendment merely clarifies what has been understood in places like England for half a millennium.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 9:32:25 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:19:50 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Which children are you speaking of? The same costs are associated with deporting children born outside of the U.S. as adults born outside of the U.S.

Or do you mean children born in the U.S.? It doesn't cost any more to educate those CITIZENS than it does to educate your kids or my kids or your neighbor's kids...

the children of illegals...you know, the ones NOT supposed to be here, yet continue to suck up our limited resources. Oh, that's right, to the far-left mind, resources are unlimited. At least, "other" people's resources are.

the cost of illegal immigration is not especially high compared to, say, our retarded foreign policy, or Plan B medicare. i am figuring this debate has nothing to do with cost, however.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 9:35:16 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

(a) I commented on the costs of deporting a non-citizen and educating a citizen. I didn't say anything about the costs of educating a non-citizen. Now that you have brought it up, do you have any evidence to support your claim about differential educational costs?
(b) If I were to sponsor an immigrant, they would not be here illegally. That is how the immigration process works.

(c) My charitable giving is my business. My tax dollars, however, go to support schools in my community. I don't have kids. I don't even like kids. And yet, I pay to educate other people's kids every damn day. I don't complain about it. It surprises me that you - as a parent - would complain about the costs of an educational system that your kids benefitted from.

it is actually your civic responsibility to pay for programs that you disagree with, but which we, as a nation, have chosen to support. it is called the social contract. it is a foundational idea for a republic. it is really weird, from my perspective, that nobody alive today seems to understand this idea. but i guess selfishness is more important than having a coherent and functioning republic.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 9:44:32 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:27:14 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Don't deport 'em. Simply make it illegal to give them jobs or to sell or rent housing to them or to provide medical services or to provide schooling to them, and they'll beat a hasty retreat to the Exit Door... self-deportation. Problem solved.

BINGO!!! Problem solved.
What I can't understand is how illegals are managing to own cars.
Don't you have to prove you have a license before buying or registering a car?

nope.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 9:58:42 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:42:13 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Let me get this straight...You're saying it doesn't cost anymore to educate the child of an illegal?
I was under the impression that our schools were being funded by our tax dollars, tax dollars that the illegal parents aren't paying.
So, who then is paying for this education?

(a) we've talked at length about the fact that most undocumented workers do pay taxes. They probably don't pay in enough to cover their share - but neither do most poor people. We still educate poor kids.

(b) who pays? I pay. The costs of the educational system in this country aren't fully covered by parents of school-aged kids. We all subsidize the costs of educating kids that aren't our own.

Why do we single out these kids?

this really IS the question, isn't it?

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2012 10:18:32 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:00:28 GMT -5 jkapp said:

>>(a) I commented on the costs of deporting a non-citizen and educating a citizen. I didn't say anything about the costs of educating a non-citizen. Now that you have brought it up, do you have any evidence to support your claim about differential educational costs? <<

Differential education costs? Children of illegals get educated on our dime - they are not supposed to even be there. More kids means more supplies, teachers, equipment, ESL aids/teachers, etc - all paid by LEGAL residents for the benefit of ILLEGAL ones. The cost per pupil can range anywhere form $7k to $20k+ per year, depending on the location. That's a base rate of $84k for 12 years...far outpacing even the highest deportation cost of $24k.

Then you must factor in the children of illegals flashing La Raza Nation gang signs, and causing death and destruction within our neighborhoods, and ending up in prison, costing us all more in police and prison costs - which far outweigh a one-time cost of $12,500-$24k+. When we're having to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year to house a criminal illegal in our prison system, it kind of makes that one time deportation cost seem pretty reasonable...

You seem very angry. That's probably why your argument is so irrational.

My challenge to zib was to demonstrate why it would cost more to educate Billy (who was born in the U.S. to undocumented parents) vs. Timmy (who was born in the U.S. to U.S. born parents). You are correct that having more kids enrolled in schools costs more money. That is true no matter who is having babies. But you haven't shown any differences in educational costs for Billy vs. Timmy.

To your somewhat out of left field point about gangs and crime... if Billy (reminder: born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, see also: citizen) or Timmy joins a gang and engages in criminal activity, they may be sent to juvenile detention or prison. Both of which are more costly than a public education (3-4 times more costly per our favorite conservative news outlet: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/14/states-spend-times-incarcerating-educating-studies-say-464156987/)

We should definitely try to keep our kids in school and out of gangs.

Now, if the gang members are themselves undocumented, THOSE are the people that the feds say we should deport. If there is evidence of criminal activity, everyone agrees it is worth the $23k to deport them. So, I'm not really sure what the guys in Arizona would have to complain about in that instance.

Your argument seems to be that we should wait until that illegal commits a heinous crime before action gets taken. I would prefer we be a little more proactive about it. And I don't dispute the legal kids joining gangs, I just don't see how allowing more to illegally come into this country is a good thing? Do you really want MORE gang members and MORE taxes and MORE costs associated with illegals' children?

And the fact the the children of illegals are not even supposed to be here in the first place is what I am discussing. There are costs associated with them that we shouldn't be paying if their parents had obeyed our laws. Its like allowing a bank robber to keep the stolen money after the crime has been discovered (or allowing the family to keep it, as it were). I don't like rewarding poeple for committing crimes; you obviously don't have the same issue with it...

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:08:34 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:58:42 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

(a) we've talked at length about the fact that most undocumented workers do pay taxes. They probably don't pay in enough to cover their share - but neither do most poor people. We still educate poor kids.

(b) who pays? I pay. The costs of the educational system in this country aren't fully covered by parents of school-aged kids. We all subsidize the costs of educating kids that aren't our own.

Why do we single out these kids? How is the U.S. citizen child of an undocumented worker less worthy than the child of a bank robber? The kids aren't responsible for the parents' criminal acts.

How is the U.S. citizen child of a foreign-born laborer less worthy than the child of a U.S.-born laborer? Both kids are poor. Both probably get free lunches at school. The kids aren't responsible for their parents' earning potential.

They are kids. They go to school. That's the deal.

I get that it's not the fault of the kids, but where does this end?
The schools in S. Ca. are crumbling under the weight of too many non-English speaking children and not enough funds. Yes, we educate the children of the poor and it's a huge burden to the schools. Someone has to pay for this! Maybe those who support this are willing to spend 3 times their tax dollars to fund it? I'm not.

it ends when our obligation under the constitution and state law is met.

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2012 10:25:15 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Good Lord, that's twice now people have missed the meaning of the word "otherwise"

Well other than the whole rape stuff, that Sandusky guy is ok

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:19:22 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:11:58 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

I am curious as to why the fed govt requires legal and natural born US residents to have to produce numerous pieces of govt issued documentation in order to get/renew your drivers license, as well as in order to get a job?

Good question. And what happens when an illegal is pulled over and has no license or identification? Does he lose his car, go to jail, what exactly happens to him?

the SCOTUS seems to think that said person has to be given the opportunity to prove whether they are a US citizen before they are detained. if i were a citizen who spoke Spanish as my first language, and i lacked ID on my person, i would certainly hope for at least that much lenience.

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2012 10:50:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:35:16 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

(a) I commented on the costs of deporting a non-citizen and educating a citizen. I didn't say anything about the costs of educating a non-citizen. Now that you have brought it up, do you have any evidence to support your claim about differential educational costs?
(b) If I were to sponsor an immigrant, they would not be here illegally. That is how the immigration process works.

(c) My charitable giving is my business. My tax dollars, however, go to support schools in my community. I don't have kids. I don't even like kids. And yet, I pay to educate other people's kids every damn day. I don't complain about it. It surprises me that you - as a parent - would complain about the costs of an educational system that your kids benefitted from.

it is actually your civic responsibility to pay for programs that you disagree with, but which we, as a nation, have chosen to support. it is called the social contract. it is a foundational idea for a republic. it is really weird, from my perspective, that nobody alive today seems to understand this idea. but i guess selfishness is more important than having a coherent and functioning republic.

I didn't realize rewarding lawlessness was part of the social contract...inetersting interpretation though.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:25:16 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Or do you mean children born in the U.S.? It doesn't cost any more to educate those CITIZENS than it does to educate your kids or my kids or your neighbor's kids...

It does cost more to educate a child who shows up at school not speaking a word of English, something that is rather common among certain immigrant groups. And hispanics in general aren't exactly known for valuing education, so having a large population of kids who come from homes where education is not valued makes everything more expensive.

you're reaching. most immigrant homes value education, imo.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:59:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:50:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is actually your civic responsibility to pay for programs that you disagree with, but which we, as a nation, have chosen to support. it is called the social contract. it is a foundational idea for a republic. it is really weird, from my perspective, that nobody alive today seems to understand this idea. but i guess selfishness is more important than having a coherent and functioning republic.

I didn't realize rewarding lawlessness was part of the social contract...inetersting interpretation though.

what lawlessness do you think i support, bro?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:41:10 GMT -5 swamp said:

My challenge to zib was to demonstrate why it would cost more to educate Billy (who was born in the U.S. to undocumented parents) vs. Timmy (who was born in the U.S. to U.S. born parents). You are correct that having more kids enrolled in schools costs more money. That is true no matter who is having babies. But you haven't shown any differences in educational costs for Billy vs. Timmy.

Billy is probably in an ESL class and will need remedial service until he is proficient in English, thereby costing more. Timmy may or may not need remedial services and probably already speaks English. Maybe badly, but it's his first language.

For all those who want to deport everyone, don't you think they're just going to come back and we'll have to spend the money all over again?

my child required special services for his ADHD. that was costly for the state. was it more than an ESL student? i have no idea. but it was probably comparable.

again, i am not sure that the cost is really the issue here.

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2012 11:01:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:25:16 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

It does cost more to educate a child who shows up at school not speaking a word of English, something that is rather common among certain immigrant groups. And hispanics in general aren't exactly known for valuing education, so having a large population of kids who come from homes where education is not valued makes everything more expensive.

you're reaching. most immigrant homes value education, imo.

Based on what? The poor performance of most schools with children of illegals would kind of disprove that theory.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:53:13 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:18:32 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

You seem very angry. That's probably why your argument is so irrational.

My challenge to zib was to demonstrate why it would cost more to educate Billy (who was born in the U.S. to undocumented parents) vs. Timmy (who was born in the U.S. to U.S. born parents). You are correct that having more kids enrolled in schools costs more money. That is true no matter who is having babies. But you haven't shown any differences in educational costs for Billy vs. Timmy.

To your somewhat out of left field point about gangs and crime... if Billy (reminder: born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, see also: citizen) or Timmy joins a gang and engages in criminal activity, they may be sent to juvenile detention or prison. Both of which are more costly than a public education (3-4 times more costly per our favorite conservative news outlet: www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/14/states-spend-times-incarcerating-educating-studies-say-464156987/)

We should definitely try to keep our kids in school and out of gangs.

Now, if the gang members are themselves undocumented, THOSE are the people that the feds say we should deport. If there is evidence of criminal activity, everyone agrees it is worth the $23k to deport them. So, I'm not really sure what the guys in Arizona would have to complain about in that instance.

Your argument seems to be that we should wait until that illegal commits a heinous crime before action gets taken.

you need to calm down, jk. crafty clearly said that illegals should be deported. i would call that pre-emptive.

if you typically start your day with a coffee or beer, i suggest you take a time out and have a drink, then try again.

[jkapp]

Jun 27, 2012 11:02:18 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:59:31 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I didn't realize rewarding lawlessness was part of the social contract...inetersting interpretation though.

what lawlessness do you think i support, bro?

Illegal immigration, fraud, identity theft...just to name a few.

Again, I liken spending taxpayer dollars on welfare/services for illegals and their children to letting the family of a bank robber keep the proceeds of the crime.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:04:57 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:01:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you're reaching. most immigrant homes value education, imo.

Based on what? The poor performance of most schools with children of illegals would kind of disprove that theory.

not really. if you look at poor neighborhoods that are virtually 100% english speaking, and multigenerational US citizens, you will also find underperformance. thus it would seem that underperformance is more related to social norms and the economics of poor communities than whether or not a parent speaks English.