If Bill Gates had been born in (and stayed in) Mexico, where do you think he’s be now? Do you really think there would have been a Mexican Microsoft?

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Started Mexican Microsoft? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know.

Become El Presidente of Mexico and turned the country around?
Maybe he would have done that.

I was shouting at the television: “Mitt, it wasn’t your money.” How come Massachusetts Mitt gets a free pass for his big government health care which is awfully close to Hillarycare 2007?

I dont think it is the same. What state outsiders don’t understand is that MA already has free health care for the poor. I mean beyond ER care, there actually is a card you get from the state called MASSHEALTH. This is not something new or created by Mitt.

The MassHealth program provides comprehensive health insurance—or help in paying for private health insurance—to more than one million Massachusetts

Thats is 20% of the population, NOW, before ‘Romney care’ is in effect.

People yelling that Mitt created government health care in MA dont seem to get that what he really did was reform a big government system that was already there.

You could make the same argument for out-of-state students. Should a student pay twice as much because his parents made the mistake of living in Montana rather than California? Again, I have sympathy with both sides, but not with the notion of either zero-tolerance on one hand or that all scholarships need to avoid any residency or citizenship requirements. Surely there’s a happy medium here.

Not to mention the fact that Huck lied, and that is total BS. See the headlines for Slublog’s post over at Ace of Spades HQ. That is one scholarship. Is a red herring. The questions of in-state tuition has nothing to do with those requirements, only need a GED and 3 years of Arkansas high school for an illegal immigrant.

Do you people honestly think that a kid who’s gone through the entire public school system in America, done well, and is now applying for a scholarship should be punished because his/her parents broke the law? The kid didn’t do anything wrong, and s/he’s worked hard to do well in school, and now BLAM! Sorry, your parents are illegals. Screw you.

You could make the same argument for out-of-state students. Should a student pay twice as much because his parents made the mistake of living in Montana rather than California? Again, I have sympathy with both sides, but not with the notion of either zero-tolerance on one hand or that all scholarships need to avoid any residency or citizenship requirements. Surely there’s a happy medium here.

I was unaware of the Snopes entry.

Yeah – like I said, the 40% was believable, but some of the other figures were not. And, though believable, I now doubt it’s anywhere near 40%, since that number seems to have been pulled out of thin air.

There are a lot of immigrants in L.A. County, but it would be interesting to see what percent of that 40% are illegal immigrants, and not just people too poor to worry about taxes or unwilling to pay them. Citizens break tax laws too, you know.
calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

I may have missed it, but when did we (especially conservatives) start judging the economic value generated by a worker in terms of the amount of money the government makes off of him in taxes?

And I know the Bible prohibits punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Saying the parents economically benefit because their children get the same chance as anyone else is ludicrous.

Non-citizens do not get the same chance as “anyone else.” Nor do they “deserve” the same chance as anyone else. By definition, the children of non-citizens in a faraway country do not have the same opportunity as USA kids.

The illegal alien parents knows this, and wants to eliminate this distinction between “legal vs. illegal” and instead wants to change the subject and talk about “resident vs. non-resident.”

Parents “benefit” if anything good whatsoever happens to their kids, simply because it’s their kids. If you want to take that a step further, we should deny children who are legally here tuition breaks if their parents are criminals who scammed welfare because the scholarships benefit the parents. In fact, let’s just deny state aid of any kind to any children of criminals, because the criminals “benefit”.

That is not my argument, nor is it a logical extension of any argument I have made.

Here is my argument:

Rewarding the children of illegals with in-state tuition ***incentizes*** and encourages bad behavior, which is contrary to what the Bible mandates for government. The government is supposed to operate in a manner that benefits its citizens for the common welfare, not for invaders.

calbear on November 29, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Thank you for your research. I have made a note of your
documentation. I was unaware of the Snopes entry.

I disagree because I know the Bible prohibits rewarding law-breakers with benefits.

And I know the Bible prohibits punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Saying the parents economically benefit because their children get the same chance as anyone else is ludicrous. Parents “benefit” if anything good whatsoever happens to their kids, simply because it’s their kids. If you want to take that a step further, we should deny children who are legally here tuition breaks if their parents are criminals who scammed welfare because the scholarships benefit the parents. In fact, let’s just deny state aid of any kind to any children of criminals, because the criminals “benefit”.

BTW, ColtsFan, I know you didn’t call *me* a liberal…I was referring to other people here using that term based on Huckbee’s position. Sorry for the confusion. :)

According to The Los Angeles Times, 40% of all workers are working for cash and not paying taxes.

More importantly, the notion that the LA Times claimed 40% of county workers work for cash seems to be a lie. Still, the underground economy – involving citizens and noncitizens – is big enough that it sounded plausible on first glance.

can’t believe what I’m hearing. Do you people honestly think that a kid who’s gone through the entire public school system in America, done well, and is now applying for a scholarship should be punished because his/her parents broke the law? The kid didn’t do anything wrong, and s/he’s worked hard to do well in school, and now BLAM! Sorry, your parents are illegals. Screw you.

Look, I’m extremely concerned about the problem of border security, and I do not support amnesty by any means. But Huckabee is RIGHT on this issue, and I think it’s outrageous he’s being attacked on this — especially by people who claim to be Christians. He said the right thing when he said that American is better than this.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

You are WRONG and Huck is a LIAR
Read the language of the bill posted here:

Slublog on November 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM

Text of the link to the bill is below:

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bills/2005/public/HB1525/HB1525-020920051453.pdf

Student had to have been in an Arkansas high school for 3 years and have a GED. Have to sign a friggin’ STATEMENT saying they will get legalized. whoopdefuckindoo. Doesn’t mean jack, could have been here 3 years total, got a GED. And they are eligible for state scholarships and automatically get in-state tuition breaks. Huck is a liar, and he’s shown that on more than once occassion.

ColtsFan on November 29, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Thanks. I meant to, but forgot to, add that since that 40% is percent of workers, not cash, it’s not quite as bad as it sounds. The college student tutoring for public school tuition may not pay taxes, but those in net-positive tax brackets generally will.

But I do not think the article goes far enough.

Repeatedly, the Biblical theme of God ordaining government in a different realm or “sphere” than that of the church is echoed throughout the pages of Scripture.

This has led theologians and pastors to adopt the “2 Kingdom View” regarding government and the church.

God ordains government to discharge functions (enforcing laws, punishing law-breakers, etc) that are different ***qualitatively*** from those separate functions that God ordains for the church to have.

One realm (church) should not be in the business of telling another realm (the government) “it is okay to not discharge your God-ordained functions.” That would be unbiblical.
Similarly, the reverse holds true as well.

Take the Quality Assurance Fee, aka Nursing Home Bed-Tax. All the money charged nursing homes (and put into a separate dedicated Medicaid fund) was then chargeable by the nursing homes as a cost to the regular state and fed matching funded Medicaid Program. HelloooOO! That fed money wasn’t his either but since this was a convenient way to bloat costs to not just the state taxpayers but to grab fed money, he had no problem with that, did he?

Soak the country why don’t ya, Huck?

outrageous

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 2:14 PM

LOL. Spoken like a true liberal. Outrageous that the U.S. taxpayers won’t give a free ride through college to a foreign national.

Tell me this: who broke the law and is getting a financial incentive?

The parents of these hurting kids broke the law by dragging their young kids across the border illegally.

These same parents then economically benefit, under Huckabee’s proposed plan, by having their immoral choices rewarded by the state with educational benefits ( with financial implications) that accrue to their kids.

Thus, the illegal alien parents have “benefited” by breaking the law.

Again, I think it’s morally wrong to punish the kid (deny them the same opportunity as any other kid) simply because they happen to have criminal parents, and I think any argument to the contrary is not in keeping with either Biblical justice or mercy.

And do you understand that tens of millions of potential illegal aliens in foreign countries receive your message loud and clear, and think to themselves, “it does pay to cross the border illegally in the USA? It does pay to break the laws in America.”

and I think any argument to the contrary is not in keeping with either Biblical justice or mercy.

This is something that I would like to have an extended discussion on.

Christians, myself included, frequently confuse “justice” and “mercy” all the time.

If you disagree, that’s fine, but calling someone a liberal because they believe in mercy is political tomfoolery.

Jared White on November 29, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I disagree because I know the Bible prohibits rewarding law-breakers with benefits.

I have never called you a liberal.

I was only trying to have an informed discussion on this topic.

But thank you for your contributions and your thoughts.

If they were so good for a country’s economy Mexico would be a power house, as I believe a majority of Mexico’s population is still in Mexico, as of now anyway.

That flies in the face of all logic. Conservatives of all people should know the difference the economic and political infrastructure makes. I mean, we’ve seen economies go from pathetic to booming with the fall of the Iron Curtain. A new economic structure means different opportunities to contribute and succeed. A person who in Mexico might be doing little to nothing for the economy might, in the U.S., help greatly. If Bill Gates had been born in (and stayed in) Mexico, where do you think he’s be now? Do you really think there would have been a Mexican Microsoft?

Again, that doesn’t address whether they are a net plus or minus tax-wise, but it is silly to think that a worker’s output is independent of the environment he or she works in.

as I believe a majority of Mexico’s population is still in Mexico, as of now anyway.

MB4 on November 29, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Actually, Mexico’s total population is recently estimated around 109 million:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/mx.html

Estimates for illegals in the US range from 12 million to almost 40 million. Say its 20 million Mexicans – that’s almost 20% of the whole freaking country.

Technically, you’re right, it is a majority. But jeez.

It is unbiblical to redefine “Christian compassion” into mandating the state to provide financial incentives for people (their parents) who break the law.

Tell me this: who broke the law and is getting a financial incentive? Again, I think it’s morally wrong to punish the kid (deny them the same opportunity as any other kid) simply because they happen to have criminal parents, and I think any argument to the contrary is not in keeping with either Biblical justice or mercy. If you disagree, that’s fine, but calling someone a liberal because they believe in mercy is political tomfoolery.

If they were so good for a country’s economy Mexico would be a power house, as I believe a majority of Mexico’s population is still in Mexico, as of now anyway.

This could include a kid mowing lawns, an entrepreneur selling items on the Internet, a would-be actor working tables at a restaurant willing to pay cash, or an actor trying to find any acting job, even one that doesn’t pay scale. The one person I knew in L.A. who was paid in cash was an American who worked for a small business that was glad to avoid all the trouble that taxes bring. There are a lot of immigrants in L.A. County, but it would be interesting to see what percent of that 40% are illegal immigrants, and not just people too poor to worry about taxes or unwilling to pay them. Citizens break tax laws too, you know.
calbear on November 29, 2007 at 2:46 PM

Good point.

I kinda think that many employers who hire illegals don’t want to receive a government letter in the mail about wrong SSN…

But you made an excellent point above.

What is the economic cost of NOT educating them?

We do educate them. By federal law, states have to provide primary and secondary education to all children in this country, regardless of immigration status.

The question is whether states are obligated to extend that to post-secondary education.

What is the economic cost of NOT educating them?

How much for a bus ticket to Tijuana?

Seriously, though, I’m always suspicious of those who point out that immigrants are a net positive tax-wise. They never seem to say that illegal immigrants are a net positive….