Reply With Quote
This is where micca tries to post a bunch of to distract from his up.
Never trust an online bookkeeper for your crime statistics.
Environmental endorsements of U.S. population stabilization
the bald eagle, an American national symbol
Notable environmentalists from a wide array of political affiliations have, over the years, endorsed U.S. population stabilzation:
President Clinton's Population and Consumption Task Force
'As a matter of public debate, immigration is a sensitive and explosive issue, and both legal and illegal immigration must be addressed with great sensitivity and care in order to advance the debate. We acknowledge these impediments to easy and informal dialogue, and we urge that participants take appropriate care so that a reasoned discussion of immigration and the American future can begin.'
'We believe that reducing current immigration levels is a necessary part of working toward sustainability in the United States.'
-- from the Introduction of Population and Consumption Task Force Report President's Council on Sustainable Development (1996), established by President Clinton in 1993 to find ways "to bring people together to meet the needs of the present without jeopardizing the future."
President Carter's Global 2000 Report
'The United States should: Develop a U.S. national population policy that includes attention to issues such as population stabilization ... just, consistent and workable immigration laws.'
from "Global Future: Time to Act" in The Global 2000 Report to the President, commissioned by President Jimmy Carter in his 1977 Environmental Message to Congress and released in January, 1981.
David Brower, 1966, then Executive Director of the Sierra Club,
"We feel you don’t have a conservation policy unless you have a population policy."
Blueprint for Survival, 1972, supported by 34 distinguished biologists, ecologists, doctors, and economists, including Sir Julian Huxley, Peter Scott, and Sir Frank Fraser-Darling
"First, governments must acknowledge the problem and declare their commitment to ending population growth; this commitment should also include an end to immigration."
Former Senator Gaylor Nelson, father of Earth Day,
"We are preparing to celebrate the 32nd Earth Day just after the Census Bureau has announced that far from winding down in the 1990s, U.S. population growth boomed at its highest level in the nation's history! Not even the peak of the Baby Boom in the 1950s added as many people! This new population boom represents a profound failure in our nation's pursuit of environmental quality. Since 1970, another 80 million people have been added to the country. Every environmental goal has been delayed because of this failure."
Wisconsin Secretary of Sate, Douglas LaFollette,
"To continue ignoring the large population component of our increasing environmental problems will certainly doom our grandchildren to a very bleak future."
President Theodore Roosevelt,
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. ...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities." (Address to Knights of Columbus, Oct. 12, 1915)
Jacques Cousteau,
''Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage."
John Flicker, President, National Audubon Society,
"Human population growth is the most pressing environmental problem facing the U.S. and the world."
Garret Hardin, professor emeritus of human ecology at University of California, Santa Barbara (Living Within Limits, 1993)
"...population policy must be policy for a nation, not for the whole world, because there is no world sovereignty to back up a global policy. We can, and should, seek to persuade other nations to take steps to control their population growth; but our primary focus should be on the population growth within our own borders. This means that overpopulation can be avoided only if borders are secure; otherwise poor and overpopulated nations will export their excess to richer and less populated nations."
This is where micca tries to post a bunch of to distract from his up.
Never trust an online bookkeeper for your crime statistics.
The people see you for what you are that's why the democrats are so worried about the coming elections. THE DNC PLATFORM FOR 2009 to well forever ...if you don't vote for us your a racist.
My question to everybody else is can we really any longer afford the stupidity of the Soros DNC.
He just said you use made up statistics like racists do.
National Poll Finds Most Americans Believe Immigration Adversely Affects the Quality and Cost of Healthcare
Oppose Rewards for Illegal Migration - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Seventy-three percent (73%) of likely voters agreed that hospitals should be allowed to inquire and collect data about the immigration status of those seeking Emergency Room care without affecting the legal requirement that they must provide emergency care. Just 18% said no. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the respondents believed that providing health insurance to illegal immigrants will just encourage more illegal immigration. After receiving emergency medical care, if it is determined that an illegal immigrant will require long term follow-up medical care, 47% believed that the person should be deported to his/her home country. 38% believed care should be provided, but time and cost limits should Be established for eventual deportation. Only 8% believed long term care should be provided in the U.S.
Pulse Opinion Research, LLC
Show More http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090915
Poll Shows Liberals Opposed to Extending Taxpayer Funded Healthcare to Illegal Immigrants
Oppose Rewards for Illegal Migration - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Fifty-three percent reported opposition to providing healthcare to undo ented aliens. Forty-six percent felt that current proposals would likely provide coverage to illegal immigrants. Forty-eight percent of liberals and progressives felt that providing healthcare to undo ented immigrants would likely lead to increased healthcare costs. With regard to the President's handling of healthcare reform, the poll revealed that sixty- seven percent of self-identified liberals approve of the President's actions. Seventy-five percent were in support of a public healthcare plan administered by the federal government and forty-nine percent felt the President's plan would result in better overall quality of healthcare services.
Pulse Opinion Research, LLC
http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090915
83% Say Proof of Citizenship Should Be Required to Get Government Health Aid
Oppose Rewards for Illegal Migration - Monday, September 14, 2009
Eighty-three percent (83%) of voters nationwide say that people should be required to prove they are a citizen of the United States before receiving government health care subsidies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 12% disagree and five percent (5%) are not sure.
The desire to limit the benefits to U.S. citizens is found across demographic and partisan lines. It is held by 95% of Republicans, 70% of Democrats and 87% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is favored by nine-out-of-10 conservatives and moderates, along with 56% of those who consider themselves politically liberal. But 32% of liberals hold the opposite view.
Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ent_health_aid
Poll: Houston voters want HPD to help feds catch illegal immigrants
Support Tougher Enforcement - Thursday, September 3, 2009
Fifty-six percent said they favor the idea of using using Houston Police officers to enforce federal immigration laws, and 35 percent said they oppose it.
11 News/KUHF Houston Public Radio
http://www.khou.com/news/local/stori...141032f8f.html
Half of Americans Believe Immigration Should be Reduced
Prefer Lower Numbers - Friday, August 7, 2009
A Gallup poll released on August 5, 2009 shows that 50% of all Americans believe that immigration should be reduced. This number is 11 points higher than the figure from an identical poll conducted last year. Only 14% of Americans say immigration should be increased (down from 18%) and 32% say immigration levels should remain the same (down from 39%).
5 August 2009, Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122057/Am...on-Stance.aspx
Most Arizona Voters Put Immigration Over Health Care as More Important Reform Goal
Prefer Lower Numbers Oppose Amnesty Support Tougher Enforcement Oppose Rewards for Illegal Migration - Monday, July 27, 2009
Fifty-one percent of Arizona voters say it is more important for Congress to pass immigration reform than health care reform.
By a 65% to 20% margin, Arizona voters believe enforcing the borders is more important than legalizing the status of those already living here. Half of the state’s voters (50%) think it is possible to put an end to illegal immigration, while 34% do not.
Rasmussen Reports, 27 July 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...nt_reform_goal
Poll Reveals Progressives Support Lower Immigration Numbers
Prefer Lower Numbers Oppose Amnesty - Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Leah Durant, the Executive Director of Progressives for Immigration Reform, will appear on Lou Dobbs on CNN on Tuesday night to explain new poll numbers showing that liberals are concerned about rising population numbers due to increased immigration. The poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...al.html?cat=17
a site that is know for scams and pays people to post articles that are never fully checked for accuracy of information !
this is classic! hopeadope's campaign to rid the world of mexicans gets more hilarious by the minute.
Damn, micca must really be embarrassed about posting the online bookkeeper's link. He's trying so desperately to change the subject.
micca meltdown in 3....2....
Yeah it's funny how obamatrons like you and bum, and nookler start flinging race around when faced with facts you don't like.
yeah-his sudden shift to tangents is almost desperate and sad at the same time.
This is where micca tries to post a bunch of to distract from his up.
Never trust an online bookkeeper for your crime statistics.
The People aren't buying it.look at the polls
a site that is know for scams and pays people to post articles that are never fully checked for accuracy of information !
this is classic! hopeadope's campaign to rid the world of mexicans gets more hilarious by the minute.
Actually, I'm not flinging race at all. I'm talking about people like you making up.
You didn't post facts, you posted made up .
The fact that racists do the same thing upsets you; the clear course of action for you is to not post made up in the manner racists do.
Well you and some other people obviously bought the made up bookkeeper .
More than likely a racist or two.
that is a health care issue. it has nothing at all to do with your original claims about the exponentially-higher-than-the-norm criminal tendencies of illegals. which when juxtaposed to the ins ute for migration policy's studies did not fit. and no wonder, your facts were based on a bookeeper turned blogger for hire's made up bull .
The cost of amnesty: $999 billion.
The cost of attrition by enforcement: as little as $14 billion.
Amnesty would cost up to 70 times as much as enforcing existing law.
$999 billion cost of Amnesty (Mass Legalization)
Source: The Heritage Foundation
Summary: The Heritage Foundation issued two studies in 2007 pointing out that the big problem with mass legalization is that (a) most illegal aliens are low-skilled and therefore do not earn enough money to pay enough taxes to cover the government benefits they receive; and (b), amnesty would eventually make them eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by local, state and federal governments. They found the cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and eventually to become citizens, would be $3.7 trillion through the year 2056. That works out to a present cost of $1 trillion, at a 5 percent discount rate. In other words, immediately upon passage of an amnesty bill, the United States government would need to put $1 trillion into an investment earning 5 percent per year if it were honest about paying for the costs of amnesty.
$14 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #1.
Source: Congressional Budget office Estimate for H.R. 4437.
Summary: This option is the bill H.R. 4437 sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner that passed the House of Representatives in 2005. This bill would have been so effective in combating illegal immigration that some 1 million illegal aliens marched in cities around the United States on May 1, 2006 to protest it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $1.9 billion over the 5 years 2006-2010, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure. The resulting cost was actually $13.5 billion, which we round up to $14 billion to facilitate comparison to the other cost figures.
$177 billion cost of attrition through enforcement option #2.
Source: Congressional Budget Office Estimate for H.R. 4088.
Summary: This option is the SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act) that was introduced in the House of Representatives in 2007. This is a strong attrition through enforcement bill. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years 2009-2018, which we extrapolate out to the year 2056 using a linear model to account for cost increases. Then we use a discount rate of 5 percent to bring the future costs back to a single present cost figure.
Detailed Explanation:
Amnesty Would Have a Present Cost of $1 Trillion
In 2007, the Heritage Foundation issued two studies, one on the cost of low-skilled immigration and one on the cost of amnesty. The study on the cost of low-skilled immigration noted that low-skilled immigrants do work hard: “It is important to note, these families are rarely idle; they consistently work and pay taxes. However, the taxes they pay are seldom, if ever, sufficient to cover the cost of the government benefits they receive. In consequence, these households must be continually subsidized by other taxpayers.” The Heritage study concluded that low-skilled immigrant households will cost native born U.S. taxpayers $89.1 billion per year over each of the next 30 years.
The Heritage report estimated that illegal residents comprise 41 percent of low-skilled immigrant households.1 Simple multiplication indicates that illegal-immigrant households cost the U.S. taxpayer $36.5 billion each year. Over 30 years, that works out to $1.1 trillion in costs. Using a financial calculator, we assumed a discount rate of 5 percent, and computed the net present value of a cost stream of $36.5 over the next 30 years to be $589 billion.
Cost to Taxpayer for Government Benefits to Illegal Aliens:
Years Cost Each Year Total Cost Present Cost @ 5% discount rate
2007-2037 $36.5 billion $1.1 trillion $589 billion
2038-2056 $144.5 billion $2.6 trillion $410 billion
$999 billion
A second report was issued by the Heritage Foundation a few weeks after the report discussed above. This report discussed the costs allowing current illegal aliens to become United States citizens. They will become eligible for the full array of welfare and medical benefits offered by state and federal governments. This study concluded that the $36.5 billion per year figure is valid for the next 30 years. The average age of an illegal alien is early 30s. Beginning 30 years from now, the current illegal alien population will retire. The problem is that low-skilled illegal aliens do not earn enough money to support their families, send remittances back to their homelands, and save adequate money for retirement. The U.S. taxpayer will be stuck supporting most illegal aliens in retirement. And each retired illegal alien is projected to cost the U.S. taxpayer $17,000 per year.
The Heritage report continues, that of the 10 million retired illegal aliens, some 8.5 million will live to the retirement age of 67 years old. At that time, the statistically normal lifespan is an additional 18 years. $17,000 per year for 18 years is $306,000. That is the cost of supporting one amnestied illegal alien through retirement. Multiplied by 8.5 million people, and that comes to the astounding figure of $2.6 trillion.2 Using a financial calculator, we assumed a discount rate of 5 percent and computed the net present value of a cost stream of $144.5 billion per year for 18 years from the years 2039-2057. The net present cost was given as $410 billion.
Attrition Through Enforcement Would Have a Present Cost of as Little at $13.5 Billion
H.R. 4437, The “Border Protection, An errorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005,” had Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner as its original sponsor. This bill had several features to combat illegal immigration including:
mandatory E-Verify 6 years from date of enactment
end the “catch-and-release” policy for all persons apprehended at border
require DHS to reimburse counties within 25 miles of the border for the costs relating to illegal aliens
removal orders would become final more quickly and readily
facilitate removal of aliens who reenter the country illegally after having been deported
mandatory minimum prison sentences for offenses related to illegal entry into the United States
additional port-of-entry inspectors and canine detection teams
This was the bill to which Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the penalty for illegal presence (aimed at visa overstayers) from a felony to a misdemeanor (Amendment 656, Roll Call Vote 655).3 However, all but 8 Democrats voted against the amendment (in other words, they voted for upgrading illegal presence to a felony) because they wanted to use the provision as a rallying point from which to stir up opposition to the bill.
The passage of this bill attracted a firestorm of opposition from the open borders lobby, including illegal alien demonstrations in a number of cities on May 1, 2006.
The illegal alien lobby was opposed to this bill because it would have been effective. This is why we can safely conclude that effective attrition through enforcement would cost as little as $13.5 billion.4
Strong Attrition Through Enforcement Would Have a Present Cost of $177 Billion
The SAVE Act (Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement) Act was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on November 6, 2007. It never made it to a vote because the House leadership would not allow it. Among the key provisions of the bill were:
mandatory E-Verify 4 years from the date of enactment;
increased employer sanctions for those knowingly employing illegal aliens;
a "National Birth and Death Registration System" to reduce stolen iden ies;
140 additional Criminal Alien Program (CAP) officers to identify and remove criminal aliens detained in federal, state and local facilities;
training at least 250 state and local law enforcement officers on how to perform federal immigration enforcement procedures;
8,000 additional beds for illegal aliens detained by immigration officials;
13 additional federal district judges in border states to increase the flow of deportations, including 4 for the District of Arizona and 5 for the Southern District of California;
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost $40.7 billion over the 10 years between 2009-2018
Numbers USA
Damn micca, proudly citing the online bookkeeper's made up bull was bad enough. Your attempt to cover it up under an avalanche of cut-and-paste is comedy gold!
Looks like the bookkeeper who wrote micca's well-sourced article got her "statistics" from a chain email.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
Holy , micca just keeps finding new ways to kick his own ass every day. Seriously, don't change a thing micca; your posts are the reason I enjoy coming into the political forum.
You won't even attempt to adress the Issue it's like joe wilson said about Obama and the illegal aliens YOU LIE
Damn micca, proudly citing the online bookkeeper's made up bull was bad enough. Your attempt to cover it up under an avalanche of cut-and-paste is comedy gold!
Holy , micca just keeps finding new ways to kick his own ass every day. Seriously, don't change a thing micca; your posts are the reason I enjoy coming into the political forum.
Obamatron?
Notice this
I primaried for McCain. It seems that everyone on this board not full of pure hatred for this administration is an Obamatron.
ironically, the heritage foundation has financially supported many covert operations, including the attempts to overthrow the sandinista government in nicaragua.
any one who know anything at all about the history of illegal immigration would know that a good percentage of the illegals that have crossed over from mexico are not even mexican but actually central american refugees. they often fled brutal militia based goverments put into power by the US (el salvador, nicaragua, guatemala). much of these governments were put into power by the $$ of individuals such as joseph coor, a once prominent member of the heritage foundation.
You dont like those facts huh they expose a little too much O.K. here are some facts that will lower your blood pressure
THE RECESSION IS OVER.
AMERICA IS ONE OF THE LARGEST MUSLIM COUNTIES IN THE WORLD
FOX IS A MOUTHPIECE FOR THE RNC
OBAMA IS WELL LOVED IN ALL 57 STATES.
That's an ACE recruiting strategy in a country of millions.
Which of these is not like the others?
And a private citizen with top-secret clearance -- which I always thought was interesting (even if OT.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
