A blog about Business & Finance, Family & Home, and Travel.
About ghostriter


Real Name:
Charlee Talor
Gender:
female
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
August 27, 2008
Profile Views:
2403
Blog Views:
15650
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Calypso, et al....
Auto Insurance Law
Calypso part Two
Tessa, Tish and Calypso
Wake Up, People!
Ackstabbing Itches
A Cell Phone Shock
Memorial
Lousy Looky-Loos
The Continued War on Ridiculous Fees
Archives
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


ghostriter - > I'm Still Kicking! -> Illegal Immigration
Illegal Immigration

A friend of mine sent this to me. Truer words have rarely been spoken.

A lady I know wrote the best letter in the editorials in ages!!!  It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on  TV.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, might make it possible for illegals to stay indefinitely. Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house.  
Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and I did the dishes and washed the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do.
I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your  house).
According to the protesters:
 

You are Required to let me stay in your house.
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.

You are Required to educate my kids.

You are Required to provide other benefits to me and to my family. My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest (except for that breaking-in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to "better myself".

I'm a hard-working and honest person (except for, well, you know, I did break into your house. But that is irrelevant.) 

And what a deal it is for me!!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, and one more thing:  I DEMAND that you learn my language, so you can communicate with me. After all, I am necessary to your way of life. No one who is born into your family is willing to work the way I am.

Why can't people see how  ridiculous this is?! If you agree, pass it on (in English). Share it if you see the value of it.
If not, blow it off...along with your future Social Security benefits, quality health care, and a lot of other things that illegals are soaking up like sponges.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: illegal, immigration, farm workers, jobs, work
posted by ghostriter on Monday, February 26, 2007 at 09:08 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 489 times
35 comments from 13 users

1

posted by jcmiamigonow on Feb 26, 2007 at 09:57 PM

Right on. I've been trying to find the old story of illegals coming to the USA. One illegal came over then had his wife and kids to come. They then got on welfare and invited all thier cousins to come to the USA. They have free medical, food stamps and unemployment so we don't have to work. Soon all the people in Mexico are here so the legal workers in the USA have to go to Mexico to work. Soon there is no money for all the benifits the illegals are getting so they want to go back to Mexico so the workers there can supprot them.

posted by Don49ers on Feb 27, 2007 at 07:53 AM

yeah it was cut and pasted, and it said so in the first line "A friend of mine sent this to me"

posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:21 AM
Per this article, illegals haven't rec'd welfare since Clinton took office:

This Spotlight examines the eligibility of immigrants for welfare as provided for in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. These rules were subsequently modified (see "Immigrants, Welfare Reform, and the Coming Reauthorization Vote" by Audrey Singer), but the significant changes made under the PRWORA make it worth examining in detail.

The PRWORA was passed with bipartisan support under the Clinton administration, and dramatically reformed the nation's welfare system. A specific provision, Title IV, changed the eligibility of noncitizens for public assistance. In addition to income, eligibility for major federal benefits was linked to immigration status and whether the applicant arrived before Aug. 22, 1996, which was the date the law was enacted. Specifically, PRWORA provides for the following:

  • Legal permanent residents (LPRs) who were residents of the United States as of Aug. 22, 1996, are barred from receiving food stamps and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Each state, however, is allowed to offer LPRs Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid. Since 1997, states have been mandated to provide State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage to immigrant children legally in the US before Aug. 22, 1996.
  • LPRs entering after Aug. 22, 1996 are not eligible for food stamps or SSI. However, they can apply for Medicaid and TANF benefits five years after entering the country legally, and are then allowed benefits at each state's discretion. States may use the maintenance of effort requirement to serve post-1996 legal immigrants who would be eligible for TANF if not for the five-year bar. In addition, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 restored immigrants' access to food stamps.


  • Refugees and asylees are eligible for benefits seven years after their date of entry.


  • Nonimmigrants and undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving benefits. They are eligible, however, for public health, emergency services, and programs identified by the attorney general as necessary for the protection of life and safety.

  • posted by ghostriter on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:43 AM

    Once again, cowards go by anonymous.

    If you look at the bold black letters heading the post, it clearly states that it was sent to me by a friend of mine. I had not seen it before, and thought it was fun, and that others would enjoy it. You are right, I did not know the "lady who wrote it"; I do, however, know the person who sent it to me. And BTW, I did change some of the words...I corrected the spelling.

    Get a name, and a sense of humor to go with it. Blind criticism is only annoying, not constructive.

    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:49 AM
    ghostriter..you will find that most negative comments are anonymous. Get used to it, its a regular occurrence round these parts.
    posted by woofwoof on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:00 AM
    Doesn't it feel like you were being hit with a rolled up newspaper?  I'll cut and paste if I want to!   -- so mature.
    posted by robbwillis on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:24 AM
    However, we do need an amendment to 14th amendment of the Constitution regarding non-citizens giving birth to instant US citizens. This change is overdue now and will only become more so as time passes.  
    posted by GotREALITY on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:27 AM
    Nice link Dusty. I think it's peculiar that people have been claiming that illegal immigration will mean the demise of the US for years and it has yet to happen. Yes, let's put in place an immigration system where only legal immigrants will be allowed to work and set a goal for 100% compliance for that policy, then those who work in the fields and other such places can justifiably ask for higher wages and benefits. Of course, the farmer and small business owner would be justified in increasing their prices.
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:32 AM
    Thats a good point Robb, but there is documentation that shows it will produce little in the form of savings to states and the federal goverment. I don't have the link to the article, but I will look for it. GotReality..there are always people that will say the undocumented's take from our society...but they NEVER admit that these people also give back to the gov't  in the form of taxes paid, etc. The point of contention should be..how much is the difference and why don't we hold the business accountable to the fullest extend of the law, that hire them.
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:37 AM
    Another interesting study here about immigrants and education:

    The United States is considered a magnet for foreign talent. As cited in a report by the Institute of International Education (IIE), more than one-third of Nobel laureates from the United States are immigrants, and there are 62 patent applications for every 100 foreign PhD graduates in science and engineering (S&E) programs.

    Foreign students make the United States one of the most profitable educational destinations. For example, according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, foreign students and their dependents contributed more than $13 billion to the US economy in 2004-2005.
    posted by robbwillis on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:44 AM
    I hadn't considered "savings" as a reason to deny the practice of plopping instant citizens into the country, but if does save a few bucks, that's another plus. 
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:47 AM
    Well, if its not to save money on some level, why do you advocate it Robb? Just curious...
    posted by robbwillis on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:56 AM
    Although advocating something based only on principle is a fool's game, it's obvious in this case that people are taking advantage, to put it nicely, or cheating, to put it bluntly. They're gaming the system and their offspring are somewhat less than little miracles at best and a ploy at worst.   
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:59 AM
    I just wondered why you were against automatic citizenship Robb. Standing on principle is fine with me. How many other countries offer the same thing we do to children born there from parents who aren't citizens? I don't have the numbers but I can think of a few off the top of my head.
    posted by robbwillis on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:07 AM
    Really? I thought we were the only country left allowing, actually encouraging, something so stupid. Lots of countries require that immigrants prove they have the ways and means to self-sustain themselves. We draw a line in the sand and "plop 'er down here."   
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:20 AM
    Nope, I am multi-tasking at the moment, but I will look it up for you later if your interested Robb. Are we talking about automatic citizenship by being born in a country or entering a country as an immigrant? Two different things.
    posted by robbwillis on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:25 AM
    Well, they ought to be two different things, but the automatic citizenship by being born in a country is what I believe needs the fix. Thanks in advance.
    posted by ki6amd on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:32 PM
    I need to check my e-mail more often. I got the same e-mail (although my friend probably copied it from this post, or got it from the same people you did.) At any rate. Thank God someone posted it.
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 04:44 PM
    Oh yeah Skyler..its so factual and all..don't want to you miss that.
    posted by ki6amd on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:07 PM
        Dusty, the only disagreement I might have is with medical care (see:Hippocratic oath) but it is factual. I have known illegal immigrants who've received food stamps, and other services from our govn't (local, federal, and state). Let's take for example the prison population in California and find out who among them is here illegally. And of course since all inmates are entitled to an education, our tax dollars get to pay for their education, not to mention that they also should have cable television in this state. If you wonder if they use it, ask anyone who spent time in a prison (as a guard or otherwise) what language shows the televisions are constantly on.... oh yeah, and those "victims" have broken the law twice.
    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:19 PM
    Skyler, our State prison system is at the point of going under Federal Receivership. I highly doubt education or cable tv watching is a priority, or that they all get those things. Inmates are being housed in class rooms and gyms. Any one that you knew getting welfare or foodstamps was prior to the laws I cited above. If they did by breaking that law, its safe to say American citizens do it as well, although the system is very rigid in its diligence to ferret out abusers.

     I do not like that anyone gets medical care without going through the process to qualify. But that said..ER treatment sucks ass..and I would know..I do not have medical insurance either.

    I cited various things in my comments above. All verifiable. Like I said before..to say they 'take' from us means you have to admit the 'give' as well..the question lies in the how much is left after the math is done.

    I do not condone undocumenteds being here. I want tougher laws to punish the corporate morons that willingly hire them and take advantage of them. But I do not like kneejerk reactions and generalizations that they are all bad people sucking the life out of our country.

    Have a good evening. I have to finish an article which has a deadline in two hours. I hate deadlines :)
    posted by tonyh on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:45 PM

    I say lock down the borders and jettison any (everyone) caught in the country illegally. Prosecute anyone employing, renting to, or doing doing business with anyone illegally in this country. All benefits, education, medical care, etc. should be denied to illegal aliens.

    The "automatic citizenship" because you were born here thing needs to be fixed also. Every other country sees it as the child is a citizen of the country where the parents hold citizenship. What's so wrong with that?

    Get them all, the heck out and make them apply through the right channels. Once everything is legal and square, they're welcome to be here. I really don't think that it's too much to ask.

    posted by anonymous on Feb 27, 2007 at 08:56 PM

    tonyh,

    It is not to much to ask.

    It is called following the law of the land.

    It I were to go to Mexico, I would follow their laws to the best of my ability (or pay the consequence).

     

    posted by tonyh on Feb 27, 2007 at 09:19 PM

    anonymous,

    You're exactly right.  You most certainly would.............................

    posted by woofwoof on Feb 27, 2007 at 10:09 PM

    Why has illegal immigration stopped....I just paused to put those words in Google... First, I get something about NAFTA, oh what a joke that is.  The second one is about boycotting Bank of America * YEAH*....and down a little farther was this blogspot  and the comments therein are interesting.   It's been 14 years ago yesterday, since the first attack on the World Trade Center....because of slack immigration rules.

    It still comes down to what this costs US economically.  It seems like a no brainer. 

    Plus anon, has it pegged with that last line:  If I were to go to Mexico, I would follow their laws to the best of my ability (or pay the consequence).

    posted by randomfactor on Feb 28, 2007 at 09:35 AM

    Interesting piece in the LA Times today:

    http://www.latimes.com/news...

    (Subscription required, but it's free)

    Immigrants boost pay, not prison populations, new studies show

    Immigrants are less likely to go to prison than U.S.-born residents of the same ethnic group and they boost pay for natives, research says. By Teresa Watanabe, Times Staff Writer
    February 28, 2007


    Two new studies by California researchers counter negative perceptions that immigrants increase crime and job competition, showing that they are incarcerated at far lower rates than native-born citizens and actually help boost their wages.

    A study released Tuesday by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants who arrived in the state between 1990 and 2004 increased wages for native workers by an average 4%.

    UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri, who conducted the study, said the benefits were shared by all native-born workers, from high school dropouts to college graduates, because immigrants generally perform complementary rather than competitive work.

    As immigrants filled lower-skilled jobs, they pushed natives up the economic ladder into employment that required more English or know-how of the U.S. system, he said.

    "The big message is that there is no big loss from immigration," Peri said. "There are gains, and these are enjoyed by a much bigger share of the population than is commonly believed."
    .

    posted by robbwillis on Feb 28, 2007 at 09:58 AM

    That is interesting.

    One of the study's detractors said: "Immigrants, who make up one-third of California's labor force, could also be discouraging natives from moving to the state and taking advantage of higher-paying job opportunities." Like that's a bad thing...

     

    It doesn't mention the immigrant's second generation's impact on crime and prisons, though. The kids that come out of families where the parents don't speak English face a tough time in school even with bilingual education. Many overcome, but those that can't or won't do get into trouble. 

     

    Speaking of The LA Times, anyone watch Frontline last night?

    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 28, 2007 at 10:16 AM
    I didn't see Frontline..was it good Robb? Hey..after spending about 2 hours yesterday researching the automatic citizenship by birth thang we talked about yesterday, I have learned the following:

    Most countries had it and have changed the laws. The majority now require at least ONE parent to be a resident of the country, if the child is an orphan they will always be allowed to become a citizen..which of course makes sense to me. A fairly decent site that runs through many of the Euro countries laws is here. Wiki was very good and I was going blind well into the middle of the night going through all their info. There are two terms used to describe citizenship aka Nationality, per wiki: Nationality most often derives from place of birth (i.e. jus soli) and, in some cases, ethnicity (i.e. jus sanguinis). Here is my sadly incomplete list:

    Belarus

    Czechoslovakia

    Canada

    Austria-if the child lives continuously there for 10 years

    Poland-if the child is stateless

    South Africa

    Germany if the child lived continuously in the country for 8 years

    Philipines..under certain conditions

    Belgium if the child is stateless

    England..with certain criteria

    Italy..if the child or his parents are stateless

    Ireland

    Netherlands under certain conditions

    France..if stateless

    Greece

    Bermuda


    Stateless is a term which wiki defines thusly: S
    omeone who is not a citizen or subject of any state. Pretty vague don't ya think? Also, the countries which want continuous residence in actuality do not give 'automatic citizenship by being born there..unless you stay there for a set duration of time...which seemed to me pretty vague and useless.

    Sorry I couldn't go more indepth with it Robb. But you apparently were correct that most countries have changed their laws and no longer offer what we do here in the U.S.
    posted by randomfactor on Feb 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM

    Well, Robb, I guess his point is that Americans from other states may be indirectly disadvantaged (through the loss of opportunities) and it wouldn't show inside California.

    .

    I would suspect there's a lot that can be questioned about this study--but it seems a good place to start.

    posted by robbwillis on Feb 28, 2007 at 10:42 AM

    Dusty,

    Thanks for the birthright research. Interesting to see what countries still have no qualifications at all. The United States needs them more than most since we're such a magnet. Some of those countries have trouble keeping people in instead of out.

     

    The Frontline was #2 in their four-part series on journalism. The LA Times went from family ownership to the pubicly-owned Tribune. Although the LA Times makes a $200 million profit on $1 billion in revenue, it's under pressure to satisfy Wall Street now and the Tribune keeps cutting staff. Two editors have been fired for refusing to downsize any more. With 75% of original reporting coming from newspapers, having them in trouble is troubling.

     

    Random,

    I think the guy complaining about immigration from other states being curtailed because of illegal immigration ignores, as usual, the over-population of this state. I don't care where the extra bodies are coming from.  

     

     

    posted by dusty1215 on Feb 28, 2007 at 11:07 AM
    Damn, I wanted to see that Frontline Robb..Its a great 4 part series.I think you can see it all online over at PBS. Thanks for the headsup. Editor and Publisher did some of the interview excerpts from the first installment and I was hooked!

    Sorry I couldn't slog through every country Robb..my back was killing me and it was getting very late.
    posted by raychopra on Mar 17, 2007 at 09:11 PM
    just want to clear, IMMIGRANTS who are in this country (country of origin doesn't matter) LEGALLY, actually pay towards the progress of our economy.  Majority of these LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are HIGHLY EDUCATED providing service to community where as those ILLEGAL ones, just DRAIN our system and resources. Still have the nerve to say, I WANNA STAY, without me who will do these jobs.  We use to do their own jobs but been SPOILED as you can find someone to do this. 
    posted by tonyh on Mar 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM

    Legal is OK. I'm cool with that. I've got a colleague from India whose visa is such that he's having a problem changing positions within the same company. I, and a couple of others are helping him work through the situation.

    He's an Engineer, trying to make the transition from Quality Engineering to Development Engineering, within the same Company. This guy is a talent and he's doing his part to be in America the right way. Even though he wants to maintain his Indian Citizenship, for now, I think he belongs here. We're working on it. It'll take a few months, but I'm sure that we'll be able to help him fix things.

    I have a problem with people who hold duel citizenship, keep all of their (liberal) assets in another country, but come here for free medical treatment because they can claim indigence, and the treatment is much better. I've known people from other countries (including India) who do this. I turn them in, whenever I hear about it, because it's wrong.

    I worked for a guy whose Parents owned 12 hardware stores in India and lived very well there, held duel citizenship and came here for free medical treatment. They'd come and stay with their Son for a couple of months and take care of all of their medical needs, then go home to India. After about ten years of this, I got sick and tired of it and turned them in for it.

    Illegal is quite different. They need to go home and apply through the correct channels..........................Period!

    posted by anonymous on Mar 17, 2007 at 11:17 PM

    I don't believe that anyone has a problem with those people that immigrate legally. They have paid their fees, complied with the law, undergone background checks, and waited patiently in line (for many years usually) in order to enjoy the freedoms that the native born take all too forgranted. The issue that alarms me is the granting of blanket amnesty to those that are flooding into this country illegally. That which is given free has no value. Where do their loyalties lie. It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to realize that they are gaining in political clout and once they have achieved the right to vote (as if they don't already) they may promote, initiate, and vote for legislation favorable to a foreign power, i.e. Mexico, against the interests of their host country, the United States of America.

    Annon 42

    posted by raychopra on Mar 19, 2007 at 04:13 PM

    I am with you tonyh,  People who misuse the system no matter if they are Legal or Illegal need to be reported.  i am glad there is someone who has the courage to stand up & do something not like lot of who just keep on complianing on hese things.

    You have my support my friend.

    1

    Leave a Comment
    Ground Rules for posting comments:
    • No profanity or personal attacks.
    • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
    If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

    To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
       

    Our readers recommend: