Welcome to Dem Land

[oladub]

The children you disrespectfully referred to as anchor babies are not undocumented. Like it or not, they are American citizens and would not be included in that statistic.

Shelby, You know exactly what is meant by anchor baby. "Anchor baby" is a term used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the mother and other family members gain legal residency. -wikipedia

What is derogatory is that the supposed role of the child rather than the child.

You muddle citizenship with costs associated with illegal aliens. Yes, under the present interpretation of the 14th. Amendment any child born here except those of diplomats are subject to the laws of the United States rather than being subjects of their parent's country. But since your thesis was that illegal aliens paid so much in taxes that they more than offset costs they incur, the costs of illegal aliens children, whether born at home or in the U.S. are relevant. With that argument falling apart because it costs more than $13,700/year/child to educate the average K-12 public school student, you introduced two new arguments. The first was that anchor babies should not be counted as a cost incurred by illegal aliens because they were born here. The second was that eventually children of illegal aliens, not the illegal aliens themselves, will maybe pay enough tax money to pay for all the costs incurred by their parents and themselves even though 40% of illegal alien children drop out of high school. Since you do not acknowledge legality, you failed to explain why there are not enough legal aliens and Americans to populate this country.Why do you want a higher birth rate? I thought you supported abortion and green policies. You failed to acknowledge that we also have near record numbers of legal aliens moving to the U.S. offsetting lower domestic birth rates. Since you don't recognize the difference between legal and illegal aliens, you failed to show that the combination of domestic births and legal immigrant births failed to meet your curious [[un)green goal of increasing our population.

You inadvertently, I think, advocate lower wages.

"Should we have a completely open border so that anyone can come in the United States of America? If that were to happen, which I strongly disagree with, there is no question in my mind that that would substantially lower wages in this country. When you have 36-percent of Hispanic kids in this country who can't find jobs and you bring a lot of unskilled workers in the country what do you think happens to that 36-percent of kids of today who are unemployed? 51% of African-American kids." -Bernie before he went full Democrat 7/31/15

[Shelby_]

Shelby, You know exactly what is meant by anchor baby. "Anchor baby" is a term used to refer to a child born to a non-citizen mother in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the mother and other family members gain legal residency. -wikipedia

What is derogatory is that the supposed role of the child rather than the child.

You muddle citizenship with costs associated with illegal aliens. Yes, under the present interpretation of the 14th. Amendment any child born here except those of diplomats are subject to the laws of the United States rather than being subjects of their parent's country. But since your thesis was that illegal aliens paid so much in taxes that they more than offset costs they incur, the costs of illegal aliens children, whether born at home or in the U.S. are relevant. With that argument falling apart because it costs more than $13,700/year/child to educate the average K-12 public school student, you introduced two new arguments. The first was that anchor babies should not be counted as a cost incurred by illegal aliens because they were born here. The second was that eventually children of illegal aliens, not the illegal aliens themselves, will maybe pay enough tax money to pay for all the costs incurred by their parents and themselves even though 40% of illegal alien children drop out of high school. Since you do not acknowledge legality, you failed to explain why there are not enough legal aliens and Americans to populate this country.Why do you want a higher birth rate? I thought you supported abortion and green policies. You failed to acknowledge that we also have near record numbers of legal aliens moving to the U.S. offsetting lower domestic birth rates. Since you don't recognize the difference between legal and illegal aliens, you failed to show that the combination of domestic births and legal immigrant births failed to meet your curious [[un)green goal of increasing our population.

I DID NOT SAY THAT [[in bold). You put all kinds of words in my mouth except the ones I've actually said.

Everything I have said is in relation to the FAIR "study" ONLY, and why it is flawed.

I'm respectfully withdrawing myself from this exercise in futility. I wish you and Richard continued success fighting windmills.

[oladub]

I DID NOT SAY THAT [[in bold). You put all kinds of words in my mouth except the ones I've actually said.

Everything I have said is in relation to the FAIR "study" ONLY, and why it is flawed.

I'm respectfully withdrawing myself from this exercise in futility. I wish you and Richard continued success fighting windmills.

Ah, well then you must think something else if somehow your views are different than your criticism of FAIR for including taxpayer costs for anchor babies as a cost of illegal immigration.

There is something heroic though about fighting windmills or even great white whales against overwhelming odds when they are thought to be the repository of evil. I watched about 20 minutes of last night's Democratic debate, all I could take, and it seemed to be a contest of which candidates could give away the most free stuff. Every program, we are to believe, was going to be paid for somehow by the top 1/10 of the 1%. That'e even more ambitious than Woodrow Wilson's income tax that would only tax the top 4%. At least Wilson abided by the 10th. Amendment by creating the 16th. Amendment to allow a new form of taxation [[on the rich).

The threat of Democratic socialism free stuff promises is more real than windmills and great white whales. I'm moderate so I am optimistic that the on stage economic clowns' narrative will play out more like Eva Peron's Argentina than Chavez' Venezuela. I do agree with you that Democrats have a corporate media fanned tailwind and will likely win in 2020. The only hope I have is that some people are afraid to or refuse to answer polls honestly like in 2016. I haven't been polled but have a Democratic friend who gave some money to a candidate and since then says he must be on list and gets polled frequently. It isn't enough to offset other reasons to believe we we won't have a blue wave. I'm not given to going off with the sheep, baaa, just because everyone else is doing so and I might consequently seem quixotic. That's ok.