"usual suspect" > wrote in message >
> Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his outlandish
> claims. I found the following information online which supports your
> recollections.

I never said that it was limited to HK residents. The press at the time was
highlighting Canada's program in relation to HK turnover and not living in
Canada I had no clue as to the complete immigration policies of Canada.

> In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong Kong
> immigrants entered Canada under the Business Immigration
> Program, which means that most of them came under the Family
> Class.
Again I never said all immigrants came under that program. How can they?
Not everybody has that kind of money.


> Other Hong Kong immigrants come under the Business Immigration
> Program. There are several categories where these people could
> fall under. Most of them are either Entrepreneurs or Investors.
> Entrepreneurs are granted a visa if they invest a minimum of
> $250,000 in the country and create jobs, and take upon a
> managerial role in their business. Investors, on the other hand, can
> take a more passive, but also a more expensive role by
> investing $250,000-$500,000 (depending on which province they
> will invest) in the country for a minimum of five years.

I do not recall that high amount as the amount I recall was $100,000 so look
again for another category.

Note to you,

Learn to clean your posts up, it's hard to read through all that crap. Snip
out Bozo.
>

pendejo estupido wrote:
> Your responses are getting more silly

Funny, I back mine up with links to sites that support my claims; you
continue to spew shit straight out of your ass without any kind of
support at all..

> so theres no point in taking it to an 8 year olds level.

Is that your age? I thought you said you marched with RFK and Chavez.

> There have many programs including taking many mexican nationals under the
> "bracero program"

The 1940s were a long time ago. The bracero program only came about
because of US involvement in WWII. There was a serious shortage of
labor. The bracero program was abandoned by the early 1960s. It was
replaced by illegal immigration. A bracero didn't become a US citizen;
he was still a Mexican citizen.

http://www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html

> and placing them in the fields of the US in the early
> years. These were "Mexican nationals", in an effort to supply the farm
> labor d needed by the US.

Only for about 20 years, pendejo.

> Because of the rhetoric you bring,

It's not "rhetoric," I've pasted links which support everything I've
said to you.

> many want that program started once more
> so in ten years they can grant those people amnesty also.

Braceros went home. They didn't receive amnesty, nor did they become US
citizens. *Some* may have, but that was much more an exception than the
rule.

> The program worked well but they never went back home after many years here.

Read the above link from the Farm Workers' site, pendejo. Not even they
agree with you:

With the crossing of 526 braceros through the Santa Fe Street
Bridge Tuesday night, current contracting of Mexican laborers
for work in U.S. farms ended, official of the National Railways
of Mexico reported Wednesday. The railroad in charge of
transporting the braceros to Juárez from all parts of the state,
disclosed the total number of workers contracted amounted to
12,127. Of this number, only a few were sent back after failing
to pass their physical examination at the Bracero Center.
(The El Paso Times, May 30, 1963)

Since you accused *me* of all people of slavery, please also note on
that webpage that the officer in charge of the bracero program for the
US Labor Department called it legalized slavery. This is your idea of a
good thing?

> That's when the amnessty program started for the illegals

Ipse dixit. That's in contrast to the information from the Farm Workers'
site and from all of recorded history.

> and it wasn't President Reagan who started it.

Who said he did?

> There have been many presidents before him
> and many after him that have amnesty or programs for illegals rendering
> those arguments dead.

Name one other president who's signed such a law granting amnesty to
illegal aliens.

> The legal system and all the social services have conformed to that fact

Bullshit. The legal system has forced social services to conform on
specious "equality" grounds (NOT on economic grounds), but social
service programs and school districts *cannot* keep up with the demands
placed upon them by such rulings. One of the links I gave you was to an
eight year-old article about the strains on Medicaid and AFDC due to
illegal immigration. Back in 1995, one in every five recipients was here
illegally. That means, if common sense were to prevail, we could save
20% of what we pay on such services if we stopped paying people who
break our immigration laws. Add to that compulsory education for
children who should be at home in Mexico, which affects 100% of illegal
children -- not just the ones whose parents receive assistance. State
governments, especially along the border, are overwhelmed. The burden on
citizens and legal residents is tremendous. That's not conformity, it's
slavery. It's also not doing what you initially claimed with respect to
Social Security. If illegals are allowed to pay into and receive such
benefits, it will surely fail sooner than later.

¿Comprende o no todavia?

> that the illegal will in time become legal and not deported.

Ipse dixit. Again, I remind you of the title of the act President Reagan
signed into law. It was the Immigration *Reform* and *Control* Act of
1986. The Congress *promised* that amnesty would be a one-time shot and
then the immigration laws would be vigorously enforced. The Democrats
got their amnesty, but their control has been limited to the requirement
that employers hire only U.S. citizens, Nationals of the United States,
or Aliens who are authorized to work in the United States and to verify
the employment eligibility of every employee hired after November 6,
1986. According to YOU, employers needn't follow that law.

> That is why he
> has rights as if he is deported he has no US rights in Mexico.

Talking out of your ass.

> The Unions are considered special interest groups by the Republicans

They are special interest groups. They form PACs, they contribute to
campaigns, and they run advertisements on behalf of candidates and issues.

> and most Unions have never given their support to them.

Why did Reagan get so much union support in '80 AND '84?

> Ask Gov S who attacked
> every specials interest group "Union" and won't talk to any.

I can try to respond to that if you'll rephrase it in coherent syntax.

> Reagan was one of the most anti-Union pres you could want.

He was, and remains, a member of a very large and influential union. He
also served as that union's president.

> He was big business

No, he was an actor who got into politics.

> gave the rich everything they wanted,

No, they were still taxed. They paid, and still do, more than their
"fair share."

http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3

> sprinkle down economics.

You don't understand economics, so explaining Dr Laffer's curve to you
is probably pointless. What I will say (that you may comprehend) is you,
too, believe in "trickle down" -- it's just that you think government is
more efficient than the private sector. You want more immigration to
stuff more revenues into bankrupt entitlement programs that are
inherently un-fixable. At least our experiences with JFK, Reagan, and
Bush-43 prove that decreasing tax rates have macroeconomic benefits
which lead to microeconomic improvement.

> To say he was proUnion is stupid.

Then why did he serve as president of one for six years, including FIVE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS? He was president of SAG during from 1947-1952, and
again in 1959-1960. He had the support of many unions including the
Teamsters, and many individuals in unions that didn't endorse him, in
1980 and 1984.

http://tinyurl.com/w4tc

Your allegation, like everything else you've written, remains unproven.

shithead wrote:
>>Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his outlandish
>>claims. I found the following information online which supports your
>>recollections.
>
> I never said that it was limited to HK residents.

You only addressed HK residents, pendejo.

> The press at the time was
> highlighting Canada's program in relation to HK turnover and not living in
> Canada I had no clue as to the complete immigration policies of Canada.

You didn't then and you still don't. You shoot from the hip, as I said.

>>In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong Kong
>>immigrants entered Canada under the Business Immigration
>>Program, which means that most of them came under the Family
>>Class.
>
> Again I never said all immigrants came under that program. How can they?
> Not everybody has that kind of money.

That's the problem with your STUPID posts, pendejo. You made a very
specific claim and had nothing with which to support it. The fact is you
*generalized* about HK residents. Whatever you saw or read spotlighted
on a program -- ONE program -- with a very narrow focus. That program
wasn't an attempt to sell citizenship to high bidders, but to encourage
business immigration for those who had their own capital.

>>Other Hong Kong immigrants come under the Business Immigration
>>Program. There are several categories where these people could
>>fall under. Most of them are either Entrepreneurs or Investors.
>>Entrepreneurs are granted a visa if they invest a minimum of
>>$250,000 in the country and create jobs, and take upon a
>>managerial role in their business. Investors, on the other hand, can
>>take a more passive, but also a more expensive role by
>>investing $250,000-$500,000 (depending on which province they
>>will invest) in the country for a minimum of five years.
>
> I do not recall that high amount

I'm not surprised at your recollection.

> as the amount I recall was $100,000 so look
> again for another category.

No, YOU look. I did look and this was the *only* such program that
involved capital transfers in connection with immigration. Canada
continues to offer asylum to anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

> Learn to clean your posts up,

Practice what you preach, pendejo.

> it's hard to read through all that crap.

I edited it so it would be easier to follow. The only "crap" you find
hard to read through are facts -- facts which prove time after time that
your silly statements are the incoherent ramblings of a drunken, senile
fool.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> pendejo estupido wrote:
> > Your responses are getting more silly
>
> Funny, I back mine up with links to sites that support my claims; you
> continue to spew shit straight out of your ass without any kind of
> support at all..
>
> > so theres no point in taking it to an 8 year olds level.
>
> Is that your age? I thought you said you marched with RFK and Chavez.
>
> > There have many programs including taking many mexican nationals under
the
> > "bracero program"
>
> The 1940s were a long time ago. The bracero program only came about
> because of US involvement in WWII. There was a serious shortage of
> labor. The bracero program was abandoned by the early 1960s. It was
> replaced by illegal immigration. A bracero didn't become a US citizen;
> he was still a Mexican citizen.

As I said he was a Mexican citizen and you have all these excuses. WWII was
over long ago and working are still to this present day going and finding
jobs in the fields. Those early days, there were no borders as people came
and went as they pleased so it was an active program to obtain mexicans for
work. The need is still there.
You still refuse to tell me why presidents, instead of reading all your
stuff about the great drain on this economy doesn't deport illegals but time
after time has made them legal.
This entire thread was started by racist remarks about "immigrants" starting
a hepatitis outbreak. Instead of stating the facts that people eating at a
Mexican restaurant become ill. They don't know if it was the onions. They
don't know if it was a handling problem but one thing is for sure and that
is you Conservative Republicans will always blame it on minorities and then
search the whole country for conservative minorities and appoint them to the
Supreme court or administrative jobs in the Bush AD.
At the same time killing affirmative action problems and any program aimed
at helping minorities.

> US Labor Department called it legalized slavery. This is your idea of a
> good thing?

I never said it was good or bad only stating the facts and one big fact is
that workers are needed.
>
> > and it wasn't President Reagan who started it.
> > The legal system and all the social services have conformed to that fact
>
> Bullshit. The legal system has forced social services to conform on
> specious "equality" grounds (NOT on economic grounds),

The courts said as long as he is in the US he has the right to an education
or are you saying that once the child of an illegal enters school he can not
be deported?
The only law the illegal is breaking is the one of not possessing legal
documents for residency and that is by intent ie by law ie by the
constitution which covers "all" individuals on US soil.
You can change the consitution if you didn't know. With all this great
super drain and great national security risks all one has to do is change
the constitution. Change the consitution myopic. Your next ethnocentric
response will be because illegals have registered to vote and the
politicians are afraid of losing the illegal vote.
The constitution is a living document that reflects the beliefs of the
people. All your excuses are just balony.
>
> Your allegation, like everything else you've written, remains unproven.

I am not making allegations but stating the obvious to anyone who has ever
been around that situation of topics dealing with illegals.
1. Those giving out benefits never check for legal status residency and even
if they know won't call the HS homeland security department.
2. Those providing medical services even if they know the person is illegal
will not call the HS.
3. Those educators will not call HS.
4. The police will not call HS when confronted with an illegal.
5. Even when caught the illegal suffers no penalty as he is simply sent
back. So he crosses over again.
6. Employers will not only look the other way but actively seek cheap low
wage workers.
7. Penaltities against employers are never enforced as even Republican
politicians nominated for high Ad jobs have employed them and forced to turn
down nominations.
8. The average person on the street has hired these people for cheap labor.
9. Most of these people are not in a position to be caught as they DO NOT
USE community resources.
10. They know if they want to stay permanently here that every ten years or
so they will be granted legal status.
11. Not all illegals want to stay here but only want to send money back
home.

You don't have a single point on your side of the argument
that shows 1. illegals are not wanted here and not just the biased numbers
showing the cost of doing business. It is business that wants them here.
It's like city people complaining about paying millions for a sports stadium
and then the club owners telling the citizens that they will get millions
back through jobs and business generation.

Retard wrote:
>>>Your responses are getting more silly
>>
>>Funny, I back mine up with links to sites that support my claims; you
>>continue to spew shit straight out of your ass without any kind of
>>support at all..
>>
>>>so theres no point in taking it to an 8 year olds level.
>>
>>Is that your age? I thought you said you marched with RFK and Chavez.

You didn't answer me, pendejo.

>>>There have many programs including taking many mexican nationals under
> the
>>>"bracero program"
>>
>>The 1940s were a long time ago. The bracero program only came about
>>because of US involvement in WWII. There was a serious shortage of
>>labor. The bracero program was abandoned by the early 1960s. It was
>>replaced by illegal immigration. A bracero didn't become a US citizen;
>>he was still a Mexican citizen.
>
> As I said he was a Mexican citizen and you have all these excuses.

First, you said braceros were given amnesty; I proved you wrong. Second,
I'm not the one offering excuses; I'm offering facts.

> WWII was over long ago

So was the bracero program.

> and working are still to this present day going and finding
> jobs in the fields.

So are many US citizens. They're called migrant farmworkers. Many of
them tend to take offense when people like don't distinguish between US
citizens who do that kind of work and illegals who take jobs and/or
reduce the wages available for their work.

> Those early days, there were no borders

Bullshit.

> as people came
> and went as they pleased

The bracero program required paperwork, much like the resident alien
("green card") program does today. You still have no ****ing clue what
you're talking about.

> so it was an active program to obtain mexicans for
> work.

Bullshit. It was a stop-gap measure which ended in 1963. You'd know that
if you'd read the link I provided for you.

> The need is still there.

Ipse dixit. If we *need* immigrants, we can control the numbers that
come in through current immigration law. Most people are open to that.
What's NOT tolerable, especially for us in border states, is allowing
people in who don't or won't work.

> You still refuse to tell me why presidents, instead of reading all your
> stuff about the great drain on this economy doesn't deport illegals but time
> after time has made them legal.

Strawman argument, asshole. Even during the bracero program, those who
came here without documentation were deported. Prior to the 1986
Immigration Act, people without documentation were rounded up and
deported. People are still rounded up and deported. The number of
illegal immigrants is far in excess of what INS and the Border Patrol
can handle. Meanwhile, the Court has ruled that those who are born here
are citizens so their parents can stay. This has led many expectant
mothers to rush across the border as they go into labor; once the child
is born here, they can go on assistance, and maybe someday find a job;
they can also send for other family members, who appear on our soil
without jobs and with open hands. We have to educate their children even
if they're here illegally, and we have to provide medical care. That has
nothing to do with "looking the other way." We tried to do that before
the Court intervened (and once again, you clueless, stupid ****, their
decision had NOTHING to do with amnesty or looking the other way or
necessity).

> This entire thread was started by racist remarks about "immigrants" starting
> a hepatitis outbreak.

It wasn't a racist remark.

> Instead of stating the facts that people eating at a
> Mexican restaurant become ill.

What made them sick at Chi-Chi's? (Which isn't a Mexican restaurant in
any real sense of the word: their food is at best Tex-Mex, and their
headquarters are in Ohio.)

> They don't know if it was the onions.

Tell that to the CDC, asswipe.
BEAVER, Pa. (AP) - A hepatitis A outbreak that has killed three
people and sickened nearly 600 others who ate at a Chi-Chi's
Mexican restaurant was probably caused by green onions from
Mexico, health officials said Friday. But how the scallions
became tainted remains unclear.

All the hepatitis A cases at the restaurant 25 miles northwest
of Pittsburgh have been linked to green onions, and most of the
victims likely contracted it through mild salsa and cheese dip,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The two
dishes both used raw or lightly cooked onions.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D7UVCGR81.html

> They don't know if it was a handling problem

They know SOMETHING happened, and it was probably the onions.

> but one thing is for sure and that
> is you Conservative Republicans will always blame it on minorities

Non sequitur, but personally I blame it on poor santitation standards
either in the fields, in collection, or in transit. That appears to be
where the CDC are leaning as well.

> and then
> search the whole country for conservative minorities

We don't have to search the whole country. Most minorities are pretty
conservative, Hispanics more so than others.

> and appoint them to the
> Supreme court or administrative jobs in the Bush AD.

Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with tainted Mexican onions.

> At the same time killing affirmative action problems and any program aimed
> at helping minorities.

Ipse dixit. Nobody's killed an Affirmative Action program. Such programs
also don't work as intended, and oftentimes are detrimental. For
example, the child of an upper-class black or Hispanic surgeon doesn't
need more 'assistance' in education or employment opportunities than the
child of a middle- or lower-class white (or Asian) laborer. Yet that's
how the current system works. It's a purely race-based system, which is
at odds with the Constitution.

>>US Labor Department called it legalized slavery. This is your idea of a
>>good thing?
>
> I never said it was good or bad only stating the facts and one big fact is
> that workers are needed.

Where? What's our unemployment rate?

>>>and it wasn't President Reagan who started it.
>>>The legal system and all the social services have conformed to that fact
>>
>>Bullshit. The legal system has forced social services to conform on
>>specious "equality" grounds (NOT on economic grounds),
>
> The courts said as long as he is in the US he has the right to an education
> or are you saying that once the child of an illegal enters school he can not
> be deported?

The two issues aren't mutually exclusive. The INS could conceivably go
into schools and try to ascertain who's there legally or illegally and
catch illegal parents through their children rather than the other way
around. But yes, we have deported children and their parents.

> The only law the illegal is breaking is the one of not possessing legal
> documents for residency

No. Their presence on our soil is the violation of law; the lack of
papers only proves it.

> and that is by intent ie by law ie by the
> constitution which covers "all" individuals on US soil.

It's not the intent of LAW -- which is a function of the democratic
process. It's an act of judicial fiat.

> You can change the consitution if you didn't know.

I do know that, pendejo.

> With all this great
> super drain and great national security risks all one has to do is change
> the constitution. Change the consitution myopic.

LOL, you should learn what words mean before you try using them in
sentences.

> Your next ethnocentric response

Which of my enthnocentricities? I'm from an interracial family.

> will be because illegals have registered to vote and the
> politicians are afraid of losing the illegal vote.

They already can and do vote here. They also vote in Mexican elections.
Why can they vote in two nations' elections but I can only vote in one?

> The constitution is a living document that reflects the beliefs of the
> people.

No, the will of the people was violated by the Supreme Court. That's
particularly true with respect to Texas' rights under the Tenth
Amendment vis a vis the 1982 PLYER case.

> All your excuses are just balony.

You're full of shit. Why can't you find ONE link to support any of your
inane rantings? (I already know that answer: because your rantings are
insupportable. This is why you complain when I post information and
links. You hate the truth.)

>>Your allegation, like everything else you've written, remains unproven.
>
> I am not making allegations

That's all you've done, pendejo.

> but stating the obvious

No. Stating bullshit. Drunken bullshit. You might impress your friends,
but I laugh at your stupidity.

> to anyone who has ever
> been around that situation of topics dealing with illegals.

I'm around it every day.

> 1. Those giving out benefits never check for legal status residency

Why? They have more to lose than anyone else if we enforce our
immigration (and fraud) laws. We should reward caseworkers for turning
in illegal aliens. Out of the 20% of inflated cost due to illegals we'd
save, offer half of it to workers as a reward. That would cause the
illegals to reconsider going on the dole in the first place, and we
could deport them in the second.

> and even
> if they know won't call the HS homeland security department.

INS/USCIS is still the agency involved in enforcing immigration law, not
the main Department of Homeland Security.

> 2. Those providing medical services even if they know the person is illegal
> will not call the HS.

They're not in law enforcement, they're in medicine. They could contact
INS/USCIS, but not the main DHS.

> 3. Those educators will not call HS.

Again, a matter of their turf. They'd lose a lot of revenue if illegal
aliens and their children were deported.

> 4. The police will not call HS when confronted with an illegal.

They occasionally do (not DHS, but the actual agency charged with
enforcing immigration laws), especially if someone is accused of a crime
or has brought enough attention upon himself.

> 5. Even when caught the illegal suffers no penalty as he is simply sent
> back. So he crosses over again.

This is irrelevant. Keep sending them back.

> 6. Employers will not only look the other way but actively seek cheap low
> wage workers.

They're still liable under IRCA of 1982. The penalties to employers are
much more severe than deportation is to illegal aliens.

> 7. Penaltities against employers are never enforced

Yes, they are.

> as even Republican
> politicians nominated for high Ad jobs have employed them and forced to turn
> down nominations.

Let's see if you remember who Kimba Wood was. No, not a Republican
appointee. Let's see if you can name the other Clinton appointees who
were later discovered to have hired illegals and in at least two cases
have to apologetically decline them. Oh yeah, you're stupid. Let me help
you.

Zoe Baird. Ron Brown. Frederico Peña. Supreme Court Justice Stephen
Breyer. Joycelyn Elders didn't hire an illegal, but she paid her help
off the books. Gosh, by that standard you'd have to include Bill and
Hillary: they listed Chelsea's nanny, a woman named Dessie Sanders, as a
"security guard" at the Arkansas governor's mansion because the state
didn't provide child care.

Wanna play a counting game? Besides Linda Chavez and Christie Whitman,
how many Bush nominees had illegal staff? Well shit, there goes another
of your stupid demagogic theories.

> 8. The average person on the street has hired these people for cheap labor.

Irrelevant.

> 9. Most of these people are not in a position to be caught as they DO NOT
> USE community resources.

Ipse dixit. Where's your proof?

> 10. They know if they want to stay permanently here that every ten years or
> so they will be granted legal status.

Ipse dixit. When was the LAST time anmesty was granted? Hmmmm?

> 11. Not all illegals want to stay here but only want to send money back
> home.

Who cares what their motivations are. They've broken the law, so they
should be deported.

> You don't have a single point on your side of the argument
> that shows 1. illegals are not wanted here and not just the biased numbers
> showing the cost of doing business. It is business that wants them here.

Strawman. You snipped ALL of my points, and ALL the facts which support
them, and then think you can change the whole nature of the discussion
with your unsupported "points." You lose, loser.

> It's like city people complaining about paying millions for a sports stadium
> and then the club owners telling the citizens that they will get millions
> back through jobs and business generation.

Irrelevant, non sequitur.

Let me refresh your memory of everything you cut out of your reply.
Please respond to what I wrote, you disingenuous punk:

pendejo estupido wrote:

> Your responses are getting more silly


Funny, I back mine up with links to sites that support my claims; you
continue to spew shit straight out of your ass without any kind of
support at all..

> so theres no point in taking it to an 8 year olds level.


Is that your age? I thought you said you marched with RFK and Chavez.

> There have many programs including taking many mexican nationals
under the
> "bracero program"


The 1940s were a long time ago. The bracero program only came about
because of US involvement in WWII. There was a serious shortage of
labor. The bracero program was abandoned by the early 1960s. It was
replaced by illegal immigration. A bracero didn't become a US citizen;
he was still a Mexican citizen.

http://www.farmworkers.org/bracerop.html

> and placing them in the fields of the US in the early
> years. These were "Mexican nationals", in an effort to supply the farm
> labor d needed by the US.


Only for about 20 years, pendejo.

> Because of the rhetoric you bring,


It's not "rhetoric," I've pasted links which support everything I've
said to you.

> many want that program started once more
> so in ten years they can grant those people amnesty also.


Braceros went home. They didn't receive amnesty, nor did they become US
citizens. *Some* may have, but that was much more an exception than the
rule.

> The program worked well but they never went back home after many
years here.


Read the above link from the Farm Workers' site, pendejo. Not even they
agree with you:

With the crossing of 526 braceros through the Santa Fe Street
Bridge Tuesday night, current contracting of Mexican laborers
for work in U.S. farms ended, official of the National Railways
of Mexico reported Wednesday. The railroad in charge of
transporting the braceros to Juárez from all parts of the state,
disclosed the total number of workers contracted amounted to
12,127. Of this number, only a few were sent back after failing
to pass their physical examination at the Bracero Center.
(The El Paso Times, May 30, 1963)

Since you accused *me* of all people of slavery, please also note on
that webpage that the officer in charge of the bracero program for the
US Labor Department called it legalized slavery. This is your idea of a
good thing?

> That's when the amnessty program started for the illegals


Ipse dixit. That's in contrast to the information from the Farm Workers'
site and from all of recorded history.

> and it wasn't President Reagan who started it.


Who said he did?

> There have been many presidents before him
> and many after him that have amnesty or programs for illegals rendering
> those arguments dead.


Name one other president who's signed such a law granting amnesty to
illegal aliens.

> The legal system and all the social services have conformed to that fact


Bullshit. The legal system has forced social services to conform on
specious "equality" grounds (NOT on economic grounds), but social
service programs and school districts *cannot* keep up with the demands
placed upon them by such rulings. One of the links I gave you was to an
eight year-old article about the strains on Medicaid and AFDC due to
illegal immigration. Back in 1995, one in every five recipients was here
illegally. That means, if common sense were to prevail, we could save
20% of what we pay on such services if we stopped paying people who
break our immigration laws. Add to that compulsory education for
children who should be at home in Mexico, which affects 100% of illegal
children -- not just the ones whose parents receive assistance. State
governments, especially along the border, are overwhelmed. The burden on
citizens and legal residents is tremendous. That's not conformity, it's
slavery. It's also not doing what you initially claimed with respect to
Social Security. If illegals are allowed to pay into and receive such
benefits, it will surely fail sooner than later.

¿Comprende o no todavia?

> that the illegal will in time become legal and not deported.


Ipse dixit. Again, I remind you of the title of the act President Reagan
signed into law. It was the Immigration *Reform* and *Control* Act of
1986. The Congress *promised* that amnesty would be a one-time shot and
then the immigration laws would be vigorously enforced. The Democrats
got their amnesty, but their control has been limited to the requirement
that employers hire only U.S. citizens, Nationals of the United States,
or Aliens who are authorized to work in the United States and to verify
the employment eligibility of every employee hired after November 6,
1986. According to YOU, employers needn't follow that law.

> That is why he
> has rights as if he is deported he has no US rights in Mexico.


Talking out of your ass.

> The Unions are considered special interest groups by the Republicans


They are special interest groups. They form PACs, they contribute to
campaigns, and they run advertisements on behalf of candidates and issues.

> and most Unions have never given their support to them.


Why did Reagan get so much union support in '80 AND '84?

> Ask Gov S who attacked
> every specials interest group "Union" and won't talk to any.


I can try to respond to that if you'll rephrase it in coherent syntax.

> Reagan was one of the most anti-Union pres you could want.


He was, and remains, a member of a very large and influential union. He
also served as that union's president.

> He was big business


No, he was an actor who got into politics.

> gave the rich everything they wanted,


No, they were still taxed. They paid, and still do, more than their
"fair share."

http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3

> sprinkle down economics.


You don't understand economics, so explaining Dr Laffer's curve to you
is probably pointless. What I will say (that you may comprehend) is you,
too, believe in "trickle down" -- it's just that you think government is
more efficient than the private sector. You want more immigration to
stuff more revenues into bankrupt entitlement programs that are
inherently un-fixable. At least our experiences with JFK, Reagan, and
Bush-43 prove that decreasing tax rates have macroeconomic benefits
which lead to microeconomic improvement.

> To say he was proUnion is stupid.


Then why did he serve as president of one for six years, including FIVE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS? He was president of SAG during from 1947-1952, and
again in 1959-1960. He had the support of many unions including the
Teamsters, and many individuals in unions that didn't endorse him, in
1980 and 1984.

http://tinyurl.com/w4tc

Your allegation, like everything else you've written, remains unproven.

usual suspect > wrote in message >. ..
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>Only if it collects x amount per worker. That's not how our system
> >>works. It's based on a "progressive" tax which generally punishes
> >>achievement and encourages sloth. Revenues are a function of tax rates
> >>in relation to economic activity. Increased levels of economic activity
> >>combined with lower tax rates (which usually spurs economic activity)
> >>can produce more revenue than higher tax rates (which usually slow down
> >>economic activity) and a slower economy. JFK and Reagan both cut tax
> >>rates, and net revenues increased as a result of the economic activity
> >>which followed in each instance. We've also seen the same effect with
> >>the tax rebates in the last couple years, particularly in the last quarter.
>
> I stand by what I wrote, particularly in the context of the OP's
> benighted statements. Since you took the time to reply, I'll address
> your statements.
>
> > In the case of Reagan, real income tax revenue was lower in each of
> > the first 5 years after the tax cut than the year before.
>
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/images/chart.gif
>
> And before you whine about Heritage Foundation being right-wing, the
> data are from OMB.

I have two problems with Heritage's conclusions (I have the same data
from the OMB).

First, they use 1980 as the baseline. The correct baseline is 1981.
The tax cut was signed into law in mid-August of 1981, with its first
impact on September paychecks. Fiscal year 1981 ended on September
30, 1981. Although the tax cut was retroactive to the beginning of
1981, only that portion given in the September paychecks was
*credited* to fiscal 1981. The rest of the retroactive piece (Oct,
Nov and Dec paychecks, plus the biggest chunk which was in the form of
refunds in 1982) was credited to fiscal 1982.

Second, they lump payroll taxes (whose rates went up) with income
taxes.

> > Revenue
> > jumped in year 6, but only because loopholes were closed.
>
> TEFRA had *some* effect, but steady economic expansion had a greater effect.

I wasn't talking about TEFRA. I was talking about The Tax Reform Act
of 1986 (effective in 1987). If you were correct and economic
expansion was the cause of the jump in revenue in 1987, then we would
have seen revenue/GDP hold steady in going from 1986 to 1987 while the
economy took off. Instead, we saw income tax revenue/GDP jump in 1987
from 9.4% to 10.2% while the economy grew no faster than before or
since the tax cut.

> > Economic
> > activity, as measured by the GDP growth rate, was not any faster after
> > Reagan's tax cut than it had been historically,
>
> It was a lot higher than it had been under the previous administration.
> Two factors for that: lower interest rates and a rebounding economy.

You need to measure GDP growth rates over whole business cycles
because they are periodic functions. Sometimes that coincides with
administrations (Clinton, Reagan). Sometimes it doesn't (Bush41 and
to a much lesser extent Carter). GDP grew at 3.4% in the Ford/Carter
cycle (2Q75 to 3Q80) and 2.9% in the Carter administration. Reagan's
growth rate was 3.4%.

> > or even in the
> > business cycle just prior to the tax cut.
>
> Which isn't saying much considering Carter's malaise.

I think you missed my point. GDP growth under Reagan was *NOT* higher
than in the business cycle under Carter, malaise and all. That goes
against your conclusion about tax cuts resulting in economic growth
and increased revenues.

> > As far as Bush's tax cuts goes, the jury is out. Revenue is way down.
>
> A function of the 1999-2001 recession, which was compounded by the
> economic slowdown following 9/11.
>
> > The GDP growth rate since the first tax cut has been about 1%-point
> > lower than either the historical average or the previous business
> > cycle.
>
> Yes, and there are some unique exogenous variables to account for that,
> not the least of which is the terrorist activity which caused a lot of
> Americans to stop going out in public as much as they had before.
>
> > But, it is too early to make conclusions because we are only
> > in the beginning of an expansion.
>
> Yes, and how fast did GDP grow last quarter? Try 7.2%, which is the
> largest gain in any quarter since the mid-80s when you suggest the
> economy didn't expand. The quarter before last, GDP grew 3.3%. PCE
> (personal consumption expenditures) -- the primary cause of much of the
> slow-down in 2001-2 -- is leading the way. Jobs are a lagging indicator,
> and there's some encouraging news there. You can wait to make your
> conclusions, but apparently employers and those who got tax rebates are
> reaching their own without you.

I don't dispute we are in a recovery, and hopefully a strong one.
What I do dispute is that long-term GDP growth will be bigger with the
tax cuts. That can't possibly be answered until the long term is
complete (i.e., an entire business cycle). We can't judge based on a
quarter, or two quarters, or even 2 years. It is however true that
growth has only been 2.2% even when including the fantastic 3Q03. I
expect a growth rate, over the entire Bush business cycle to be about
3 to 3.5%, in which case we can conclude "same old, same old". No
long-term effect of tax cuts, and tax cuts increase deficits and debt.

Josh Rosenbluth

"usual suspect" > wrote in message > Which of my
enthnocentricities? I'm from an interracial family.

Oh, sorry I guess that makes it all right to have racist views then. Maybe
you can be nominated to be a supreme court judge like Clarence Thomas who
doesn't want to ask one single question during oral arguments because he is
afraid he might sound stupid.

> pendejo estupido wrote:
snip the bablings.

Spanish? Use English, you are in America and if you don't like it then
leave and go back to Conservative San Salvado where they killed nuns to
protect US interests.

You say most minorities are conservative, yea sure. You say that illegal
immigrants are the source of all evil, yea sure. You are in complete denial
and if it makes you feel better psychologically with the brown hoard of
millions and millions coming across the border and listening to political
rhetoric then go for it.
There is no serious effort in stopping it just ask any border patrol agent.
Even those conservative friends of yours with racist views will tell you
that. Put the army at the border or do this or do that and it's all lip
service to shutup your right wing friends.
Yea Bush is from Texas and knows the problem first hand so immigration
problems are a thing of the past. He will have it stopped immediately. All
that money stolen by illegals and services. What a fool you are with your
beliefs. He hasn't done one single thing to stop it.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> shithead wrote:
> >>Robert shoots from the hip and never offers evidence for his outlandish
> >>claims. I found the following information online which supports your
> >>recollections.
> >
> > I never said that it was limited to HK residents.
>
> You only addressed HK residents, pendejo.

The article was written in reference to HK and I did not write it.

> > The press at the time was
> > highlighting Canada's program in relation to HK turnover and not living
in
> > Canada I had no clue as to the complete immigration policies of Canada.
>
> You didn't then and you still don't. You shoot from the hip, as I said.
>
> >>In 1993, only about 3,500 out of a total of 33,769 Hong Kong
> >>immigrants entered Canada under the Business Immigration
> >>Program, which means that most of them came under the Family
> >>Class.
> >
> > Again I never said all immigrants came under that program. How can
they?
> > Not everybody has that kind of money.
>
> That's the problem with your STUPID posts, pendejo. You made a very
> specific claim and had nothing with which to support it.

My claim was that HK residents had an opportunity to make it into Canada if
they wished for the 100K. The only thing in dispute is the amount? It was
proven true so what are you talking about? Oh, I suppose 250K makes a whole
lot of difference than 100K. Does the US have such a policy? Can you buy
citizenship here?

The fact is you
> *generalized* about HK residents. Whatever you saw or read spotlighted
> on a program -- ONE program -- with a very narrow focus. That program
> wasn't an attempt to sell citizenship to high bidders, but to encourage
> business immigration for those who had their own capital.

I never generalized idiot, as do you really think that giving 100K for
entering Canada is the only way to immigrate there? That's a real laugh and
you are really disperate in trying to prove every little thing I write is
wrong.

I have been to Canada a couple of times, B.C.. The people were great and had
a good time. I have been to Texas and let me say I prefer Canada in terms
of people being friendly to tourists.

Let me finish you guys off here.

There is no criminal penalty for crossing the border illegally. NO CRIMINAL
PENALTY.
If you get a single parking ticket then you have just paid more than the
combined sum of millions and millions of what illegals have paid.
All they do is send them back from where they came from, free of charge.
That will teach them a lesson.
Please tell me what other crime on the books do you see this? If you steal,
can you give whatever back and say forget it?
We Americans think this is such an non crime that there is no penalties for
it. How do you explain that under the equal protection clause?
Mr. Conservative says,"You commit the crime, you serve the time". You have
to take it seriously as the will of the American people came up with the
three strike law and put people away for life. A guy steals a slice of a
pizza and he was put away for life because he strong armed a guy for it.
What usual suspect and others have said here is just plain bull. It is
racist in origin in which the courts have clearly found "equal protection"
rights.
The citizens have not changed the laws because it is not in their favor to
do so as they benefit too much from the cheap labor.
The will of the American people has spoken and Bush will not do anything but
grant amnesty or come up with another program giving the same as other
presidents have done.