O'Reilly: Supporters of liberalizing immigration bill* want to "change the complexion" of America
On the May 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that the "segment of the population" who, like The New York Times, wants to see some restrictions on migration in the Senate immigration bill eased or modified "hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure." In an editorial, the Times criticized restrictions in the bill "that narrow[] the channels through which family members can immigrate," while also saying, "It is encouraging that the bill survived several attempts by that camp ['the restrictionist right'] to blow it apart."* O'Reilly continued: "So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too." O'Reilly later asserted that the Times "want[s] to change the white, Christian male power structure" and concluded: "So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn't that interesting?"
As Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly has previously warned that pro-immigration activists want to alter the racial demographics of the United States. During the April 11, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of New York City Councilman Charles Barron: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." In the April 11 interview with O'Reilly on Westwood One's The Radio Factor, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment.
From the May 29 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK, I think it's a small part, but I think it's there. On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too. It's a different kind of hatred, but it's hatred and best exemplified by The New York Times, which today says in its editorial, quote: "Those who want [the immigration] bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over 'amnesty,' callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it," unquote.
Now, this is a theme of The New York Times, that if you oppose the immigration bill that you hate Latinos. Now, there's a segment that does, but most oppose it on policy. They just think it's bad policy, rewarding bad behavior. Bad policy. But The New York Times, which is an open border, OK, let-everybody-in concern -- that's what they want, because they want a totally different power structure in America.
Number one, they realize that 40 million new citizens -- and that's, you know, probably the estimate that if you let all the illegal immigrants and all their extended families come here, which is what The New York Times want, would wipe out the two-party system. You'd only have a Democratic party, because new immigrants are probably gonna break 3-to-1 Democrat, and that's what The New York Times wants. But more than that, they want to change the white, Christian male power structure. That's what they want.
Now, these are hidden agendas. The New York Times would never cop to that, ever, but if you read consistently their editorials, they have no solution to border security. They don't want any sanctions on illegal aliens who come here and even commit crimes. They want criminal aliens to stay, and they don't want any sanctions on businesses who continue to hire illegal aliens even after the Z visa is issued. It's an open border, "Let them all in, anybody who wants to come here."
That's insane. We don't have America then. America disappears. That's where Pat Buchanan is right. You let that happen, there's no more United States of America. It's gone. You have United States of the World, because everybody comes here with no restrictions. So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn't that interesting?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
And McCain agrees!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/31/preserving-the-white-christian-male-power-structure/#comments
Thanks for posting the link Earlier Snoopy!
you're welcome!
McCain doesn't stand with his base or the majority of the Population on this issue.
The American public doesn't want to be told that they are racists because they want laws currently on the books enforced.
The American public doesn't want to be told that people who have been here for 10 years don't have to pay back taxes while legal immigrants, who follow the law do.
The American public doesn't want to be told that South American Gang leaders can become legal if they sign a sheet of paper denouncing their gang.
The American public doesn't want to be told that people who broke the law are given Amnesty. Even liberals support this issue.
Just take a look.
http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com
Ldoren, just curious- what is your purpose in repeatedly linking to a website that's basically an uncontested version of the worst of the conservative posts here?
Don't get me wrong, I went to it, and had a few laughs, but if you're trying to advance your Republican cause, I'd advise against using that site.It appears to have been written by a 15 year old dittohead.
His source may be bad but his points are not.
I'll give you half credit on that post, EHull.
You make fair points, that doesn't shnge the fact that BO is race baiting. McCain is agrreeing with BO's statement the the white male cristian power structure is in danger and needs to be protected.
If race doesn't matter and sex doesn't matter and there is supposedly religious tolerance in this country than what is he trying to say?
A lot of you are changing the subject to talk about the immigration policy and completely ignoring what MMFA is highlighting. If this was a Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin moment or a Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson moment or an Al "Foot in my month 90% of the time" Sharpton moment you same people shifting the subject would be screaming bloody murder.
If they deserve to be called out why don't some of you call out BO for his statements? It stinks of hypocrisy and Tunnel vision. So as long as he's on your side of the immigration issue he gets a pass on race baiting? How ridiculous!
O’REILLY: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.
MCCAIN: In America today we’ve got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don’t need so many.
O’REILLY: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don’t know, I don’t know. We’ve got to cap it.
MCCAIN: We do, we do. I agree with you.
So, as usual, there's a minor flaw in their logic.
What happens when they've reached the limit, but there are still many more illegal immigrants who made themselves known based on their promises? My guess is they will say "too bad" and lock them all up. In other words, it's first come first serve. If I were an illegal, there's NO WAY I would risk that happening to me or my family.
The far left and white guilt.
I actually agree with BO on this one because there is a segment of the far left that has it hardwired into their heads that if someone is darkskinned and from an impoverished nation that they are automatically a victim of some kind of evil American/European/corporate oppression.
Therefore to relieve their own feelings of white guilt they want the borders wide open so that they can feel compassionate about themselves while punishing the evil white government and business establishment.
I do believe this attitude exists out there and I know it's not politically correct to point it out. However one of the negative things about Media Matters is that they will always be as PC as they can possibly be.
White guilt refers to feelings of guilt associated with white privilege and said to be experienced by some people of Arab and European descent when they consider present or past wrongs committed by their ancestors, or nonrelated historical people of Arab or European origins, against natives of conquered and colonised lands and other exploited people. It is usually used with regard to the feelings of White Americans regarding the history of African Americans and Native Americans.[1]
it relates to immigration how?
So in your opinion the white, Christian, male power structure should be protected?
BTW who on the left in GOvernment is advocating "wide open borders"?
What a load of BS ! Please tell me again what it is I believe. Now tell me what I had for breakfast. Now tell me how my guilt is tearing me up inside because I was born white. Politically correct? Who cares? Stupid statement? Well yeah!!!
Interesting. Where are they? Who are they? Because i'm a liberal and they don't show up at the meetings. It's more likely you want to cling to a petty myth to direct your anger at a segment of society. Petty and small. I believe you aren't that bright.
Jim,
What are we going to do about those damn pain in the ass whiny minorities? I say deport them all to Mexico to protect the integrity of the supreme White power structure.
Snoopy, monknj80, therick, bingvangorden and lynn
Snoopy
White guilt relates to immigration how?Because we feel terrible about how priveledged we are as opposed to the poor darkerskinned victims whom are corporations have oppressed with our racist capitalist system....and so forth.
***
monknj80
So in your opinion the white, Christian, male power structure should be protected?No, I think the borders should be thrown wide open and the Christian white male power structure should be destroyed and its evil put to an end.
BTW who on the left in GOvernment is advocating "wide open borders"?I didn't say the government I said a far left mindset. Actually Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid all voted to build the fence.
***
therick
What a load of BS !therick, we're never going to get anywhere in this discussion if you keep holding back.
Please tell me again what it is I believe. Now tell me what I had for breakfast.My guess is lots and lots of fiber and bran?
Now tell me how my guilt is tearing me up inside because I was born white.I didn't say "therick" has white guilt I merely said there's a far left mindset which does.
***
bingvangorden
Interesting. Where are they? Who are they? Because i'm a liberal and they don't show up at the meetings.You know all those evil, greedy white Republicans that we always generalize...I mean talk about on this board. They live across the street from them.
It's more likely you want to cling to a petty myth to direct your anger at a segment of society. Petty and small. Yes, I am deeply enraged at this very moment, we racist xenophobes are full of hate you know.
I believe you aren't that bright.Dat's jus a nasty rumor sterted by frusturated tutors who had to deal with me.
***
Lynn
What are we going to do about those damn pain in the ass whiny minorities?That's an excellent question Lynn. What I suggest is we keep throwing out the race card on the immigration issue. I mean let's face it; it's all we got.
I say deport them all to Mexico to protect the integrity of the supreme White power structure.How dare you suggest such a heartless act. We must keep allowing hundreds of thousands to keep entering the US every year. Only then can we truly prove that we are not bigoted xenophobes.
Thanks for the many responses. It is civil posters like yourselves who have made this site what it is today.
"So in your opinion the white, Christian, male power structure should be protected?No, I think the borders should be thrown wide open and the Christian white male power structure should be destroyed and its evil put to an end."
Nice sarcasm. I'm not for a wide open border, but Bill is race baiting and that is what this article is about. So an honest question for you since you agree with billy boy: Do you think the white, Christian, male power structure needs to be protected from immigrants?
That's pretty straight forward I think, no sarcasm intended. Just because something is PC doesn't mean it's wrong.
"BTW who on the left in GOvernment is advocating "wide open borders"?I didn't say the government I said a far left mindset. Actually Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid all voted to build the fence."
Some folks want open borders, some want them completely shut off to immigrants. What's your point? The latter opinion carries more weight than the first? There is a huge middle ground
"So in your opinion the white, Christian, male power structure should be protected"
Ya, but not because of race or gender. White men are generally Republican and very conservative, and the more white men that are in the U.S. the better the Republican party will do. You see, I'm not racist against hispanics. If things were reversed and white males were liberal and Democratic and hispanics were conservative and Republican, then I would want more hispanics in the country and less white males. I just want people in the country that will vote Republican, basically. That's where I'm coming from.
"I just want people in the country that will vote Republican, basically."
SO you want more white Christian males to support the white Christian males in power as to insure the ongoing Power strcture of the white Chistian male.
......
No, that's not about race or gender at all.
I don't care about "the power structure of the white Christian male." I simply care about having conservative governance. Race doesn't matter to me at all.
I don't care about "the power structure of the white Christian male." I simply care about having conservative governance. Race doesn't matter to me at all.
- - RINO Hunter / Thursday May 31, 2007 08:43:03 PM EST
LOL Apparently neither does "conservative governance" if you want more of the same from the Republicon party! When was the last time you got conservative anything from the party? 1987? (btw Republicon is my pet name for Repubicans, because they all repeat talking points like robots without even considering them)It's too small to read. You need to make the font bigger.
Here is HUPAJAX's post:
*****************************
I don't care about "the power structure of the white Christian male." I simply care about having conservative governance. Race doesn't matter to me at all.
- RINO Hunter / Thursday May 31, 2007 08:43:03 PM EST
LOL Apparently neither does "conservative governance" if you want more of the same from the Republicon party! When was the last time you got conservative anything from the party? 1987? (btw Republicon is my pet name for Repubicans, because they all repeat talking points like robots without even considering them)
- hupajax4076 / Friday June 1, 2007 05:13:33 AM EST
And just for the record I'm not endorsing illegal immigration. I'm completely opposed to illegal immigration and believe it should be stopped at once. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have a problem with whites losing their majority status and power structure if the people who replaced them were Republican and conservative as well.
The Latino population is very family oriented. The Chatholic Chruch is very popular. They have been described as being of a concervative nature. I would think you see them as political allies rather than as a people to be suppressed.
You're right that the latinos are conservative on social issues. That's why I've been saying that if there's another Supreme Court vacancy, Bush should nominate a conservative hispanic Supreme Court justice like Emelio Garza and dare the Democrats to vote against him. If the Dems voted against him, they would be blocking the 1st Hispanic Supreme Court justice in American history. Honestly, I should be Bush's political advisor and not Karl Rove. I heard that Rove was the one who suggested Harriet Miers. The problem is on economic issues. The latinos like the Democrats on economic issues because the Democrats will promise to give them all kinds of government handouts. Many Latinos simply vote for Democrats because they promise them the most benefits.
Historically, hispanics have voted overwelmingly democratic.
And i don't think it's race issue either. it's a culture issue. I'd prefer to be around a majority of people whom are cultururally similar to me, i.e. American. I don't want to live in a predominately hispanic culture, or any other culture for that matter. If I did, I'd move to Mexico, or Argentina, or wherever.
If they're Americanized, I don't care what color they are or where they're from.
Ya, but not because of race or gender. White men are generally Republican and very conservative (Rinohunter)
First of all, when you spell "yeah" as "ya", you really sound German.
Second, what do you mean by "generally"? A majority? Overwhelmingly? Almost without exception? Your friends?
Third, I live in an area with a pretty sizable Latino population, and I'll bet you'd be surprised at how many are conservative, especially among recent immigrants.(Think uneducated and very religious, GOP slam dunk)
If the conservatives are the uneducated ones, how come they have all the money??? (According to some people).
Jim,
We didn't play the race card, Bill O'rielly did. For the record I think immigration control is important for any sovereign nation. You have to know your population and you have to be able to accurately make projections for the future needs of your country. You can't do that with uncontrolled immigration. I'm just sick of silly guys like Bill O'rielly introducing race into the equation when it doesn't belong there, and if you think it does then YOU"RE WRONG. It doesn't matter where the undocumenteds are coming from, it matters that they are coming. I would feel the same way whether the majority of illegals were German or Micronesian. Would you? As Jeter said this isn’t a right or left issue. This is an issue that all Americans should be are concerned with. I just don’t want Xenophobes taking the lead in the discussion because they always muddy the debate with rhetoric like challenges to the White Power structure and the browning of America. It dumbs down the discussion.Lynn,
You seem like a rational person. But I assure you there ARE people (and I've talked to them) who sincerely believe the immigration debate is driven only by racism. That's all they have to respond with whenever you talk to them or try to reason with them.
I honestly believe what's driving this is their "white guilt." I believe this because I was once pretty far left myself and many of these people believe that Mexicans deserve to be here...that we OWE it to them. That's where BOs statement comes in because they want to change what they percieve as the evil white status quo that's oppressing the poor minorities.
I dont think the debate is driven by racism but I do think there is some racism. I think it more evident than your assertion about white guilt. O'Reilly says people are out to destroy white privelege, can you explain to me why there should BE any white privelege? Can you explain to me why declaring a need to protect white privelege ISNT racist? If not why are you agreeing with O'bullyboy?
O'Reilly says people are out to destroy white privelege, can you explain to me why there should BE any white privelege? You're misinterpreting the statement. What he's saying is that there are those on the far left who do not like the fact that America is run predominently by Christian white males and that they want to destroy that status quo; that's what's driving them to call for open borders. He never said there should be white priviledge, he was merely defining what motivates the open border people in his opinion. That they want to eliminate the what they percieve as an unfairness.
That is what you WANT him to have said here is what he said
"[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege".
If his point was what YOU interpreted there would be NO NEED for this statement. It wouldnt be scary nor would it be relevant. No I dont think I am the one misinterpreting anything. I think YOU are.
That is what you WANT him to have said here is what he said: I know what he said and I believe you're intentionally misinterpreting it in furtherence of throwing out the race card. Don't worry you'll have plenty of company on this site.
According to Bill, the American power structure is male.
Most undocumented immigrants are male.
According to Bill, the American power structure is Christian.
Most undocumented immigrants are Christian.
So what part, Bill, of the American power structure, exactly, is threatened by this immigration bill? Let's just say it.
(Most undocumented immigrants aren't white.)
SO BO plays the race card and now your turning it around on people for calling him on it. If this wasSharpton or Jackson the usual suspects would be having a tizzy. I need a drink.
I am not the one INTENTIONALLY misinterpreting what he said. There really isnt any reason beyond an ideological imperative to give any other meaning. There is no reason whatsoever to talk about white privelege in this context beyond an attempt to legitimize it or protect it. Dance around this all you want. I didnt thow out the race card it was dealt by O'falafel when he started talking about white privelege. Make all the transparent appologies you want they wont convince anyone not DESPERATE to give cover for the racism behind this statement. Bill doesnt want an end to white privelege its inherent in his statement only ideological blindness can give this any OTHER interpretation.
You've got Bill quoting Charles Baron but you're attributing the comment Bill.
I know that but there is only one CLEAR motivation to bring it up at all in this context and that is to attack the notion. There would be no reason to reference this at all unless it was to protect the IDEA of white privelege. That couldnt be clearer.
The "undocumented"? What a joke.
Don't think BO made it a racial issue.
I dont quite get the PRO-amnesty people on here, I really dont. Why dont you get that the amnesty of these illegal, thats right ILLEGAL people here is not about giving them a "better chance". Its about sacrificing our sovernigty.
If all the largest banks in the US are promoting thier integration, does that not send up a red flag? If you dont see the problem here, than please find the last society whose "middle class" was strengthened by an importation of a slave class. Thats right, those that are brought to this country are literally the 2000 version of slaves. Any of you try living on minimum wage? Do you not see the Dollar crumbling every day? Do you not see bringing in these foreginers as a way to bring about a North American Union? Do you not see the danger here? Have you all lost your minds? Have you forgotten the warnings of our fore-fathers?
You want to see their lives improve? March in the streets against their government's polices, and NAFTA. These are the reasons they are running for our border. With the aid of their govt's I might add. They couldnt care less about their poor. Let America take them.
Money and power continues to consolidate, and we only see our dollar's value plunge by the day. Any of you pay attention to the billionaires that have been created in Mexico since NAFTA? All it did was INCREASE the gap between the rich and poor there. It didnt do a damn thing for the working class. And you want to bring them here why? They come from literal dicatorship regimes, that couldnt care less about their lives, and you think our rulers care? Really? Anyone want to buy the BK bridge? I am talking cheap!!!!
Again, so the "liberals"(I use that term loosely, I hate these labels) on here get it. The exploited poor are not being brought here because the powers that be "care" about the "quality" of life of poor latin Americans, Its about decreasing the quality of the American lives that are here now. Its about changing the demographic of this country. America is truly in the way of creating a global government. From our guns to our Constitution, we are a threat to global governance. How to dillute our sovernity? Bring in 30 million foreginers with little or no education whom are used to a boot on their neck would help. Does that sound crazy to you? Then why are the banks of this country allowing these people to open accounts,mortagages, social security, medical benefits all without identification? They take 3x in social benefits then they pay in taxes, so who excatly is benefiting? Me? You? I dont like exploting the poor, I want to protect our middle class. And if any of you see that, stand up and say no to this!
We are now seeing the largest gap between rich and poor since the great Depression, and you are pro amnesty? We need more poor to hold down wages? Could one of you please explain why this makes sense?
And snoopy, c'mon dog...Its not "nice" to send them home? Has our govt been doing ANYTHING nice for ANYONE else in the world? Why would you think this is an attempt to be humanitarian? Humanitarian would be our govt STANDING UP to these regimes, calling them out on their corruption. But that might lead those regimes to call ours out..... Yes this is a tough one, but the answers lie with the founding fathers, and our Constitution. Read your history people, this is an attack on our soverignty. Its that serious.
"BS"
Point to on epost on this article so far that's pro amnesty. You really don't think BO is race baiting?
Nate,
You are obviously passionate about what you believe in, and I'm not trying to personally attack you, but c'mon. Reasonable people can (and do!) disagree about immigration policy, but to cast it as some sort of conspiracy to bring about global government is absurd.
Really.
It is about people who want to make more money than they are making now. Period. Workers south of the border come up to get better salaries, and companies north of the border hire them to improve their bottom lines.
Now, the discussion about how to deal with that dynamic is a complicated one, but to start it off with "North American Union" tinhattery is, IMHO, not going to lead anyone anywhere.
Are you paying attention? I've never said anything that you just accused me of.
They take 3x in social benefits then they pay in taxes, so who excatly is benefiting
Do you have a source for this figure or did you make it up?
He made it up.
The real figures? Immigrants pay more in all taxes, including Social Security taxes, than they ever get back in services. They pay more than they get back.
The feds make out like bandits, and local govts pay the price, but the immigrants pay more than they get back!
Actually, corporate oppression is why they are here.
Actually, corporate oppression is why they are here: Actually the corruption of the Mexican government and its inability to create an economy that can support its population is why they're here.
Mexican government is totally corporatist. All they need is the leaders to wear military uniforms to complete the picture. They're selling out the country to multinationals even worse than in the US. At least here we haven't had the government sell off our city water supplies and private wells to the corporations like they have in Mexico....but I'm sure they want to. Mexico is primed for another socialist revolution, methinks. The poor will be fighting for access to water this time, and that's worth fighting for.
Businesses demand cheap labor like always. The left's opposition to labor exploitation and civil rights abuses is being sold as "dismantling the white christian male power structure"
Mexican corruption. Like crony hands off capitalism that is so endorsed by white conservative christian males in this country? I'm glad you can at least recognize that the Mexicans government is responsible for the mass exodus. It's not just because they are corrupt, it's their economic and ultra conservative governance that doesn't provide a safety net for it's people and allows them to wallow in poverty. Same thing is happening here friend. If we don't switch the direction we're going we'll be fleeing to Canada for better jobs soon.
Everyone also forgets that Mexico has had a population explosion. Look at the statistics in the last 60 years. Like good caltholics they had a lot of babies - creating a huge demographic bubble. The birthrates have stabilized recently but it takes awhile to effect population growth. I doubt few economies in the world could have absorbed all the extra workers.
Of course neither government - US or Mexico - is in it for the average joe/jose. Just look at NAFTA. It is about destroying the border for finance, cheap labor and movement of capital. If you really want to stop this demographic shift, IF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY WORRIED, I suggest you turn off lou dobbs, get off your butt and promote development programs in Mexico so that all these people can survive back home. This would require investing in infrastructure there and helping local people fight corruption in government. It is in our national interest by the way.
Unfortunately our system in the USA is also corrupt and spends billions destroying Iraq and creating more terrorist.
It is a sad comment on our current state of affairs that we cry and whine like pansies that we are being flooded by all these off white people instead of acting like a true superpower and solving the problem on the ground.
Ironically we felt we knew what was best for Iraq and meddled in its affairs but we can't seem to work with our neighbors to make our neighborhood a better place.
White guilt is a nice straw man. Save it for the people that are raking it in thru NAFTA and other Globalization for profit schemes. We the people, here on the ground have to deal with the mess the deal makers at the top have created. I'll save my white guilt for the anti immigration backlash that is sure to arise as our mismanaged economy crashes and burns.
I fail to see the "misinformation" here. The real point of MMFA bringing this up is simply to attack BO.
Mission statement nazi attack number 1.
bill's not race baiting?
I don't believe Bill is race baiting.
As to the nazi comment made above, such statements make you look childish and unintelligent.
So what if Al Sharpton claimed he wanted to establish a Black, female atheist power structure in this country? Or if an Asian, female, bhudhist (sp) Power structure?
So what if Al Sharpton claimed he wanted to establish a Black, female atheist power structure in this country? Or if an Asian, female, bhudhist (sp) Power structure?
I don't get you point? If you're suggesting that Bill said he wants to establish a white, ...etc, then I suggest you read the article again. I don't think he says that. I don't think he implies or infers it.
If anyone said they wanted to establish such a structure, regardless of who they are or what race/ethnicity it would be for it would be racist.
If I missed where Bill said what you said he said(heh), then I stand corrected.
If you worked a a corporation the happened to have Executives that were all Female, Black, Atheists and they made it there goal to maintain that power structure based on that criteria, would you have an issue with that? Would you remain with the corporation and just suck it up? Would you sue?
You answered none of my question...I guess because the answers didn't fit the way you wanted them too.
So your corporation example isn't worth replying to. Show me where Bill said he wanted these things or advocates them and we'll talk.
Otherwise, I'm not playing your bait-and-switch game.
Heh. Actually, I didn't ask a question but my point was easy to get. O'reilly didn't say what you said he said. Period.
I gave a bad analogy, and then gave you a better one closer to what Bill actually said what's wrong with that.
I give you that my first comparison wasn't fair for this situation. What was wrong with my second one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't get you point? If you're suggesting that Bill said he wants to establish a white, ...etc, then I suggest you read the article again. I don't think he says that. I don't think he implies or infers it.
If anyone said they wanted to establish such a structure, regardless of who they are or what race/ethnicity it would be for it would be racist.
If I missed where Bill said what you said he said(heh), then I stand corrected."
OK he not trying to establish it, but he is implying that it's already there and needs to be protected. Is that an accurate assessment?
You accussing me of bait and switch is funny, now answer my question about the corporation.
He doesn't need to imply that it's already there. We all know it's already there. And based on our country's history it makes sense that it's there.
I don't think he implies that it needs to be protected. He implies that some peopl don't like it and want to change it through unfettered immigration. I don't know if what he's saying is true or not. I don't have the time, energy, or resources to investigate such a thing. but, being a frequent listener/watcher of O'reilly's show I don't believe he's a xenophobe or bigot. If you disagree that's fine. I won't call you any names for not liking Bill.
The corporation thin...sigh. Cmon man, who would stay at such a company unless they had to? And yea, maybe I'd sue. Maybe Edwards would take the case pro-bono since I'ma poor guy right now and he wants to help me out.
"The corporation thin...sigh. Cmon man, who would stay at such a company unless they had to? And yea, maybe I'd sue. Maybe Edwards would take the case pro-bono since I'ma poor guy right now and he wants to help me out."
But his comments to McCain pretty much imply the same scenario.
"They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have."
If he wanted to make a case against illegal aliens changing the dynamics of the country as far a our policy and laws, fair enough. He's saying the left is out to get the white man.
He doesn't need to imply the white male Christian power structure, but it didn't stop him from doing it. f this whole thing is about securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration, what does the white male power structure have to do with anything? Why even bring it up if it doesn't matter? He's implying that it's under attack, which leads me to believe he place some value on it.
I believe he's said there are those whose motivation for wanting unfettered illegal immigration is changing the power structure.
Like i said earlier, I listen to bill a lot and I don't see him as a bigot. For every comment like this that you can try to give a nefarious meaning too I could probably give you ten that show something different. And you'd come back with other quotes or not, and we'd end up where?
This issue shouldn't have been posted here anyway. There is no misinformation. It's a hit piece on O'reilly. MMFA is allowed to do hit pieces but then call your website what it is. This crap just muddies the waters. And we want these waters as white as possible, right? Just kidding.
Anything to further marginalize O'Reilly.
The reasons anyone who supports this crap of a bill are irrelevant to me......it is one of the most injurious and hideous pieces of legislation to ever come down the pike.
If this doesn't sink Bush's poll numbers further into oblivion, nothing will......conservatives and liberals alike hate this bill. Up in flames it should go.
I actually agree with you in some ways, but what do you think of BO's statements?
Kinda playing the victim, no?
I don't agree with him. Race is irrelevant to me in this argument; it is about securing our borders, national security, driving down wages at the expense of our citizens, the rule of law, and the fair treatment of immigrants who come here legally.
Tommy,
Do you suppose Bill O'rielly is intentionally stirring up racial divisiveness as in race baiting to scare his audience? There are valid pro arguments for controlling immigration and none in my mind have anything to do with race. Bill's manipulating the irrational fear that he believes is prevalent in his audience. That's the fear of becoming a minority or that minorities hate White people and I don't know want to kill them. Bill is indeed race baiting and you didn't call him on it. If this had been someone say named Sharpton or Jackson you would have gone on and on about what horrible race baiters they are. How about a little consistency buddy.Lynn, I thought I was clear in my feelings regarding O'Reilly's remarks........race baiting would be a fair description.
I know how you feel about BO. You're no fan, but you wouldn't have hesitated bringing out the race baiter term if someone on the left, particularly Sharpton and Jackson had said something remotely race baity. In fact BO’s statement is a blatant example of race baiting.
Lynn,
If you're trying to pick an argument, you're doing a good job. I agreed with your race baiting assessment on this comment from O'Reilly.
I don't really know what else you want me to say.
I'm done. Peace!
Lynn, you are right! I'm waiting for crowd that cries "race baiters" whenever Sharpton or Jackson says anything regarding race.
Lynn,
I'm not entirely sure what those that support this Bill hope to accomplish, but it isn't a Left vs Right issue.
The Right claims the Left wants "open borders" to secure Voters. The Left claims the Right wants cheap labor.
That said, I think you're spot on about O'Reilly's motives. His remarks seem to be geared towards trying to scare his audience about the *perils* of the darkening of America. And he should be called out on that.
I'd like to see our north & south borders slammed shut, and those that are here illegally sent on their way home. For those that say deporting 12 million is impossible...well certainly all at once it would be. One at a time is ok with me.
If there were 12 million tax cheats, I'm sure the government wouldn't throw up their hands and say...oh hell give them all amnesty.
Last but not least:
Enough of picking up the phone & being told to press 1 for English, 2 for Spanish. It's unfair to cater to only ONE ethnic group. My Italian Grandparents had to learn English...no special phone instructions for them.
Jeter,
Actually, I think you're a bit off on the tax cheats analogy:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Tax-Dodge-Destroying/dp/0520236106
Yeah Snoop the wealthy do get away with it...but I bet you or I wouldn't.
But let me rephrase my analogy:
If there were 12 million MIDDLE CLASS tax cheats, I'm sure the government wouldn't throw up their hands and say...oh hell give them all amnesty.
That is something I can't prove, but I'm betting I'd be correct.
now THAT I agree with!
I agree. I would love to read the proposed legislation in it's entirety, I'm hearing diffrent things on the tube and sometimes the information conflicts. I have heard that this bill stipulates that the petitioner must learn English before quilifying for citizenship. I'm not sure how that would play out because it isn't a pre-requisite for any other immigrant group right now.
Lynn,
I heard that too [learn English stipulation]...but I think we know how that would play out.
This country didn't enforce the laws already on the books, I don't hold out much hope they'd enforce any new laws or rules.
Well gotta run. Goodnight Lynn :-)
Bingo. You are absolutely right.
Your grandparents didn't have push button phones. ;)
Tommy gets it. And it didnt take him nearly as long as I did to get his point across.
Tommy. I don't support the Senate immigration bill, but at the same time I don't think it's quite as bad as you say it is. The bill states that the path to citizenship and the guest worker program wouldn't actually begin until it was verified that at least 320 miles of fence was built and the border was pretty well shut. Also, the illegal immigrants would have to go to the back of the line, and it would take them about 13 years to become citizens. I don't support the bill, because I don't believe that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in this country, but I don't think the bill is quite as bad as you're making it out to be.
Rino,
The bill gives amnesty to lawbreakers, the back of the line is riduculous.....it is unfair to those that have gone through the laborious process legally. Also, I am not in favor of a guest worker program, it creates a permanent underclass in our society, a class of indentured servants here to work. As for securing the borders first, ya right.......we were promised the same thing in 1986, didn't happen.
The bill is horrible, in my opinion.
"'Let them all in, anybody who wants to come here.'That's insane. We don't have America then. America disappears."
Didn't that already happen? I mean when the Native Americans were overrun by the Europeans. Maybe O'Lielly should consider deporting all of his ancestors because of what they did to this land.
Didn't they say the same about the Irish and the Italians and the Jews and....you get my point.
This native American doesn't feel happy about being overrun by dirt-cheap illegal immigrant labour....to take the few jobs we got left since we sent all the good jobs to Asia for dirt-cheap foreign labour. What about the future of our children, those who were BORN here? What will they have in twenty years?
It is a problem of hiring practises not immigration. Enforce the rules on the books or get run over. No other nation allows unresticted acess to jobs like the USA. You are addicted to cheap labour and prices.Either pay more or keep letting people in. The choice is very simple.
I'm fine with paying more for lettuce, burgers with lettuce, etc. We have rules on the books, this new bill does NOTHING different than the bill in 1986 said it would do. Back then we were told that strict enforcement would take place, employers would be scrutinized, the border would be tightened up, yadda yadda yadda. NONE of it happened... so what makes ANYONE today think that this new bill will be any different?
Those that support open borders (aka allowing 12M visitors to stay) fail to recognize the financial impact that these illegals have on our country. Any gain we have by illegally using their cheap labor are certainly offset by the costs to provide education and healthcare, nevermind the costs of crimes caused be those that shouldn't be here in the first place. And what will the cost of another terrorist attack be? What if those terrorists enter the US from Mexico? It's already happening! What will the 'compassionate' left say then?
I don't oppose the fence because I'm an open border fan. I oppose it because it would have to be like the berlin wall complete with armed guards to be as effective as the right wants it to be. And I oppose it because the #1 reason there are so many illegal entries into the states is because of the pathetic, long drawn out beaurocratic and costly system we have courtesy of the republican party. We can do a live background check before you board a plane but can't do it at the border? Fer reals?
I oppose it because it would have to be like the berlin wall complete with armed guards: The only minor difference being the Berlin wall was built to keep people imprisoned within a nation while our fence would be to keep people from entering illegally.
the #1 reason there are so many illegal entries into the states is because of the pathetic, long drawn out beaurocratic and costly system we have courtesy of the republican party: And not to mention the fact that the Mexican government is so corrupt that they have failed to generate an economy that can support their own population (despite having natural resources and a huge tourist industry.)
Nice dodge. Keep em in, keep em out, still the wall does the same thing. You haven't proved exactly how a wall that keeps em out is somehow easier to create and maintain.
And again, so what about the corruption? That may be the root cause about why they leave mexico, but isn't the root cause behind why they are "illegal". This country did not "charge" a fee to become an american until the republicans under Eisenhower made it so. The fees are outrageous, purposely designed to only allow the wealthy foreigners in. Y'all are real good about claiming that dem's want more voters, what the heck do you call your solution? Fair, or only allowing in people that you think will vote republican?
The fees are outrageous? What are the fees Snoop? Do you even no?
Going through this for my wife and we're talking about a few thousand bucks when it's all said and done.
That's an outrageous price to get residewcy here and possibly get citizenship?
Maybe you should put a higher worth on your country and the benefits that being a citizen here affords you and others.
And they're not illegal because of beauracracy or republican policies. They're illegal because they broke the law. It's pretty simple.
If i used your rationale, the next tiime I get a speeding ticket I'll tell the judge that I didn't get the ticket cuz I was speeding, I got it because the speed limit's too low.
Nice projection there. As usual, totally wrong, but nice attempt to change the meaning of what I said.
And yes, I do know. I went through it. If you get off with just a few thou, you are lucky. We had to re-apply every time I moved due to a job change. The process is long, it's full of red tape, and has zero in common with your traffic ticket analogy. Stop being so simplistic, it makes you look like a simpleton.
It might have been a tad simplistic and more empathetic with your situation I could not be. My wife and I will get off cheaper I guess. About 3-3500 I think and it would have been less but, like with your situation, the government had it's head up it's ass with us too and bungled things the first time around. It's a big, beuracratic mess.
Don't see how having 12 mill illegals helps that mess and I don't see how adding another 12-40 million over the next ten years helps it either. Attacking O'reilly for an opinion you find unpopular detracts from the important issue and again I find myself asking why MMFA bothered. I don't see where they point out any misinformation. I see where they imply he's a bigot/racist but again, wheteher that's true or not (and I don't believe it is true) is not the issue. At least, it shouldn't be the issue.
It's brought up by MMFA to try to marginalize Oreilly. Fine, but how bout some honesty in your mission statement then?
I've asked before and I'll ask again. Where is the misinformation?
I'll give you a half point on the misinformation. I just happen to think it important that seeing him say these things makes his positions suspect.
And you won't find me defending the 12 M being here, my point is that a lot of them break the current law coming here because of the red tape, potentially high cost and long waiting periods. If we can screen travellers in a few minutes, we should be able to streamline our entry processes. And I will go on record as saying if they aren't in the system? Those are the ones we send through the longer process. Have them pay to do a background check. Libs don't want criminal elements any more than conservatives do.
And if I have insulted you, I will apologize for that here. I try to be reasoned in my responses but will definitely go on a binge if I sense projection. Cool?
Thanks Snoop. And I'm not trying to be discourteous to you. We probably have more in common then you might thik (perish the thought, right?).
I simply disagree with you that they're illegal because of the red tape and beauracry. No doubt those things are big problems and your background check idea sounds good. I'm guessing the implementation of it and the running of it, if left to the governemet, would be just as efficient as the red tape we were previously discussing.
But I don't know enough about that to speak on it much.
Many of them broke the law getting here to work. I broke the law on the way to work today also. I went over the speed limit. I should have been sent home but instead they gave me amnesty.
Snoop, does your "open borders" continue clear to your front door? Won't you like to know who's coming into your home? Or is your door open to all at all hours, to come and go as they please, perhaps taking what they want and leaving behind what they don't want?
For instant Background checks, there would have to be some information available in order to check all. Maybe possible if that potential citizen has had interaction with his original government. If not, would there be information on which to base a decision? Would you deny entry to someone with no background information?
Its not a simple problem and I don't believe the current bill will address all the potential problems, both as they now exist and those that will appear in the future.
"your front door", Oscar ? Hoo-boy, can I attend your bed-wetting slippery slope Hall of Fame induction ceremony?
Now if you'll excuse me. I've got to drive around the perimeter of Huntington Beach, apprehending Seal Beachites, Westminsterians, Fountain Vallians and Costa Mesans.
Now I ain't defending the current bill, but am in agreement that the current policies are totally screwed up. You've been around long enough, but may or may not have seen my past posts on this issue. I've been through the current stinking process via my wife. She could have been born an american because her parents had a green card, but mexican laws at the time said that your 1st born can inherit mexican property only if they are born mexican citizens, so her parents went back across the border to ensure an heir to their property in mexico. So my wife became a mexican citizen, got a green card too, and when we got married, we spent 10 years and & $7,000 bucks getting her legalized. Fee here, fee there, every time we moved we had to pay a relocation fee. What a bunch of crap for people trying to follow the law have to follow. And the republican solution? Hey, let's build a wall and make sure no one can get in before we even remotely try to look at anything else to see if it needs to be fixed! What a great idea!
Third, bring the comparible wages to the people in their own countries. No not easy, but that and an easing the various threats that are a solid part of life to many potential immigrants, would ease the rate of immigration. Legal or otherwise.
Course nowhere near as much fun as ranting and raving about it. No matter what the reality. This is very easy too do, and a strange way to make a living.
O'Reilly, the racist! Leads a sad pathetic life,
with his racist rants, and his loofa chants, he cheats on his wife!
O'Reilly, the racist! feels threatened by the left!
"How dare they have the right to say everyone deserves a fair life!"
He's so full of hate, he bloviates, on the air for all to hear,
"How dare they try to change the white power structure here!"
So O'Reilly, the racist! Continues to rant and rave,
as he dreams of days of yore, when when it was legal to have slaves!
I like it snoop.
Thanks! I thought a little x-mas cheer for the t-man was in order! ;)
It's a sad post. I'm a little embarrassed for you.
and you are...?
The person who sees your post for what it is. A childish, unfair, idealogical rant repleat with name calling and slander to boot.
Like I said, I'm a little embarrassed for you.
Don't be, I couldn't care less what you think.
I can't help it Snoop. When I see a post like that from either side, to me, it just explifies what's wrong with politics today.
Hateful, ideolgical rants just further and fuel the devisiveness.
He cheated on his wife? Proof? None? I know.
He wants slaves? Proof? None? I know. It's shameful and the fact that you find this kinfd of behavior acceptable tells me and everyone else here all they need to know about your character. The fact that other posters here that are idealogically aligned with you find it acceptable is shameful too but not surprising.
Take the blinders off kid. Youre a married man, an adult, not an elementary school kid on the playground. Grow up!
I will work on that, but no points for originality? Not one?
Heh. In the spirit of friendship I won't flunk you for the year, how's that. You may need to do some community service work in Levitown though.
So where are all of these non-Christian illegals coming from that Bill's so afraid of?
not the same, these are Brown Christians not White ones. If they were coming from Sweden Bill would be out trying to date them.
What does Christianity have to do with it? It's not about race or religion. It's about national security.
Try leaving your doors unlocked for a while. Did you get robbed? I'm sorry... you were just luring the criminals into your home with your quality lifestyle. Did they trash the place too? Sorry... we can't lock the doors... it's too expensive. It might offend someone.
"What does Christianity have to do with it? It's not about race or religion. It's about national security."
Not according to Bill. BTW What do you think of his comments it the articale highlighted?
I never lock my doors. If it ISN'T about race what did O'falafel mean when he said this
"[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege'.
If that doesnt mean he wants to protect 'white privelege' then what DOES it mean? If its not about race then exactly why MENTION white privelege? If protection of white privelege isnt a racist position then what DOES qualify?
cann0nba11 , do you know Oscar? You both seem to be under the impression that the entire country is your private property, and everyone's out to steal it from you.
Do you feel the same way about foreign tourists using the freeways?
That may be in the top 5 worst analogies of all time.
And a slug would probably rate salt as in the top 5 worst foods of all time.
I don't follow your point...and the country is OURS! i.e. the citizens of this country.
"I don't follow your point...and the country is OURS!"
I.E. White, Christian, males.
Thanks for lowering the discourse. You said it. Not me.
No, actually you said it:
"He doesn't need to imply that it's already there. We all know it's already there. And based on our country's history it makes sense that it's there."
It's really amazing how, despite having the words right there in front of your face, you still manage to make-up your own unique and generally wrong interpretation.
Maybe you've got some of those 3D glasses but for you they change others words to liberal talking points.
Have a fantastic weekend in double speak land.
Poor Bill, first it was those black folks who wanted to receive equal treatment both in jobs and education and now it's those illegals who want a free pass into this country. They want to further darken this country and again take away the "white christian male RIGHT to power. What's a poor white man to do. Wahhhhhhhh
Oh Pearl, I think we should do our part to help Bill. I've just shipped a big wheel of cheese, he can have it with his whine tonight!
Snop, what's a poor white man to do?
What Bill didn't say when discussing the white, christian power structure is they are the ones who love illegal immigrants. Nothing keep white powerful males wealthy like cheap labor provided by illegals. I mean where can you get a labor force that will do everything, take anything and never complain.
O'Reilly's blathering means nothing to me. I have hardened my position on illegal aliens becasue...I'm sick of the mexican government telling us we can't build a fence because it's an affront to their dignity.
I'm tired of illegal aliens protesting in the streets that they're being unfairly treated.
Mexicans don't come to America to do the jobs that Americans won't do...they're doing the only jobs they're cabable of.
1. Enforce the current employment laws.
2. NO amnesty or legal status granted to illegal aliens.
3. DEPORT ALL illegal aliens. It's a strawman to claim that we don't have the resources to deport millions. Of course we can't deport 12 million illegal aliens overnight...but we can sure as hell get started.
4. SECURE THE BORDERS
You can bet your donkey that I won't vote for any slimy politician that supports the proposed legislation.
And let me be on record...I'm very disappointed with Pres. Bush promoting this load of horseturds.
Wesley you make valid points, I'm not as hardcore about it as you , but I see your point of view. THe thing is this article is completely about bill's race baiting. Nowhere in the article is MMFA picking sides on the immigraton issue. As stated earlier Bill is playing to the insecurities of some by claim the white, christian, male power structure is danger which is absurd to frame the debate in that way.
I'm sure you will be surprised, but I agree with much of that. We need to control the rate at which our country accepts immigrants. The current system is a complete failure at that largely due to weak enforcement.
This is what happens when special interests are able to control official policy at the expense of the average American. I am not convinced that either party is going to fix this issue any time soon. They are both beholden to powerful groups that want illegal immigration to continue.
I'm not at all surprised. When conservatives and liberals discuss issues there are plenty of fundamental differences.
Yet, discounting the far left and the far right...there is still a lot of common ground. I agree completely with you that special interests have too much control on policy matters.
I also agree that the chances of either party fixing the illegal immigration problem...is well...a problem.
This is no different from the type of rhetoric that you hear coming from White Supremacist organizations. I wonder if he's even aware of that.
Ding Ding Ding
You get the prize!!!!!
And just for fun, here's a list of David Duke quotes on the subject of immigration, courtesy of the Anti-Defamation League website:
[link to www.adl.org]
There's absolutely no difference between Duke's message and O'Reilly's.
I really get amused when rightwing bobbleheads invoke Hitler when someone like Al Gore tells us why he thinks it's a good idea to keep our air clean. It gets even more amusing when I hear the same bobbleheads spewing diatribes like this, openly and proudly flapping their bigoted gumholes to further incite and promote fear between two races.
Aside from O'Reilly stopping short of advocating mass execution of illegal Mexican immigrants, how is this kind of talk really much different from Hitler's statements regarding the "Jewish Question" and his portrayal of the Aryans as the real victims?
Uh, coming from a guy who believes in conspiracy theories like "reconquista," the sinister plot to reconquer the southwest that every Mexican is in on, this does not surprise me one bit. O'Reilly's M.O. is to take threats and exaggerate them, or invent them where none exists, label his political enemies as either sympathetic to or insufficiently 'hard' on the subject (usually crime, sexual predators, and illegal aliens), make sweeping generalizations about the left, then drift off to crazy-land.
I agree with the point regarding BOR's message as thinly-veiled race baiting. Having said that, the current immigration bill is the epitome of a legislative farce. Does anyone really believe that this legislation will actually solve the immigation debacle? Our gov't is famous for not following through when half-a**ed legislation like this is rammed down our collective throats. For me, this isn't about intolerance. It's about security and all the hidden costs associated with absorbing so many immigrants into our society. I do, however, resent when SOME people throw out the racist label when someone opposes illegal immigration. For those who use such a tactic, it diminishes your argument.
you are exactly correct on that. and one need look no further than the 1986 amnesty. all the groups that agreed it would be a "one time" amnesty changed their tune immediately afterward, when it came to the enforcement end. the fact is that mexico had about 35 million people in 1960. now, it's 110 million. had our population increased at the same rate we would have over half a billion people by now. and the so called benefits of immigration are wildly overstated, especially when the emphasis is on "family reunion", which is what the democrats are concentrating on. this is from george will's column [i know, conservative]: "he [robert rector of the heritage foundation] argued that low-skilled immigrants are costly to the welfare state at every point in their life cycle, and are very costly when elderly. just the 9 to 10 million illegal adults already here will, if given amnesty, cost an average of $300,000-cumulatively more than $2.5 trillion-over 30 years." arguments over things like what o'reilly is saying are a distraction from the debate we should be having.
I don't know where Rector gets his numbers. Some backup would help me understand where he's coming from.
Undocumented immigrants are bolstering Social Security, though. Quite a lot, actually.
i'm more than aware of that fact. but note that rector says given amnesty. overall, immigration, illegal and especially legal, is not worth the cost. do you want to discuss the cost of schools, roads, utilities and all the other public services that must be provided for an expanding population?
Again, I'd like to see the data. It seems like an awfully broad statement, that all immigration is "not worth the cost."
The non-partisan studies say that illegal immigrants get less in benefits than they pay in taxes and fees.
They pay Social Security taxes and other taxes, including sales tax. They get less benefits than what they pay. That's been documented.
Many lower income Americans get more in benefits than they pay in taxes. Corporations pay a lot in taxes, remember.
Social Security would be in significantly worse shape if it were not for the money collected by illegal immigrants that does not go back to their parents and grandparents, but rather pays the monthly benefit of American citizens.
The definitive study was done by Urban Institute, a "nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization." The study was called "Immigrants and Immigration: setting the record straight."
http://www.urban.org/publications/305184.html
Read Chapter 5 especially.
Contrary to the public's perception, when all levels of government are considered together, immigrants generate significantly more in taxes paid than they cost in services received.
One of the myths often cited to support the contention that immigrants cost more than they contribute is that they are heavy users of welfare. The facts are very different. When refugees are excluded, it becomes clear that immigrants of working age are considerably less likely than natives of working age to receive welfare. Refugees are explicitly entitled to such benefits on arrival and are, not surprisingly, much more likely than natives to be welfare recipients. Again, the failure to differentiate immigrants according to their legal status contributes greatly to misperceptions of reality and to proposals of potentially ineffective policies.
your study is based on the 1990 census. that data is 17 years old. education levels among immigrants have plummeted since then. the study also does a strict "cash benefits vs, taxes paid". that fails to take into account all the other thing i pointed out such as schools, roads, and all the other public services that each person requires. you can't just say they pay more in taxes than they get in "services", when you fail to include all costs. the reason california is constantly on the brink of bankruptcy is because of the costs of dealing with immigration.
val, i said "overall". the heritage study is on their home page. there are also studies at cis.org.
The study does not fail to account for those things.
It's also not true about the differences in schooling.
Lastly, it's not true that the study ignores the fact that local government feels the pinch, and the feds reap the benefits. That doesn't change the fact that immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits! Where those taxes go doesn't change the outcome to the pocketbooks of the immigrants!
under that narrow definition, every group pays more in taxes than they get in benefits. again, you are talking direct benefits such as welfare, food stamps, and other such programs that are a direct subsidy. that is hardly all costs. immigrants have more children, as one example, and place a much heavier burden on the school system.
under that narrow definition, every group pays more in taxes than they get in benefits. again, you are talking direct benefits such as welfare, food stamps, and other such programs that are a direct subsidy. that is hardly all costs. immigrants have more children, as one example, and place a much heavier burden on the school system.
Mefirst
Every group does not pay more in taxes than they get back. Many pay less in taxes than they get back in services.
I am not talking about direct benefits. Read the study, why don't you, instead of making the knee-jerk reactions.
The study does address the topic of schooling, for example, and takes into account the number of kids in the schools!
I already said this once, but people like you, blinded by your antipathy for illegal immigrants, don't seem to catch this on your first try. Some municipalities get hurt by immigrants, and other governmental divisions make extra money from immigrants!
Overall, immigrants pay more in taxes than they get back. That's the issue. They don't cost more than they put in when one counts all their contributions!
first of all, you can stick your attitude. second, as i pointed out, that study you're touting is old. and there is a reason for that. because, as i pointed out, education levels have dropped among immigrants since then. by a big ratio, they are far more likely not to have a high school diploma. therefore they are more likely to be a recipient of government benefits. and i want examples of those many groups that get more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
Val, I've seen several studies that show a net gain from illegal immigrants.Mentioned in your link is the face that many pay into Social Security, but will not ever be able to collect on it.
And I get a warm feeling thinking about these Mexican guys, sitting home at night, complaining about these rich old white Republicans taking the Mexicans taxes for their entitlements.
how about all the emergency rooms that were shut down in los angeles because of illegal immigrants using them as a substitiute for going to the doctor?
They got nothing for ya MET. The stats are pretty clear on this.
Same people that will try to tell ya that since Hispanics are largely Catholic and socially conservative that they vote republican. ofcourse, histoically, the truth is quite the opposite, and it's the same thing with entitlements and overall costs to society.
What part of some municipalities get socked and other governmental groups get windfalls do you not understand?
What I said was that immigrants pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. I never said that the burden is evenly and fairly spread out, did I?
I absolutely agree with you. My beef is most people think that because I'm "Liberal' I'm pro Illegal immigration, that's bull. I think this bill is wack and it doesn't address the real issue.
I also have a problem with BO and his ilk because I always feel a hint of xenophobia in there rants regarding immigration.
Uuuh...I'm pretty sure The New York Times is also run by white, Christian males.
Wow. BO needs to start wearing a helmet wrapped in aluminum foil, and never bathing.
OK, so people like Mr. O'Reilly and Michael Savage should generally be ignored, because they are either paranoid-delusional, or they are just saying what they do to illicit a reaction, which then results into more people watching and listening to hear what dumbass comment they'll make next (that's why I watch and listen, anyway).
But if you are a TRUE Reaganist, then why wouldn't you want more immigrants in this country? Lower salaries and no benifits equals lower cost of production, which, supposedly equals the much bantered about "trickle down" effect on the economy that O'Reilly and his ilk think of as gospel. Same result as upper-class tax cuts.
Technically, I think, O'Reilly should LOVE immigrants. Why doesn't he?
He is paranoid and hates brown people.
Pure,
Unadulterated,
Bigotry.
And I have to ask, as I do with so many of these Right wing talking points, what's the motive?
As I've said before, I'm not a lawyer or a cop, but have watched enough TV shows about them to ask; Who is angry that white Christian males are in power, and why would that make them mad?
The only white christian males I want out are Bill O'Lielly, Bush, Cheney and all the other warmongers in power.
Shorter Jim: The brown people are after our precious bodily fluids!
Bill O'Reilly IS a Fascist Nazi.
Yes, I said it. Godwin is going to have to take a break from this one, because O'Reilly is doing exactly what went on in Germany.
Let me lower the discourse. You're an idiot. This is the first and hopefully, the last time I'll have to call someone this
I'd write more but I'll run out of short words that are at your reading level.
Seek help.
White Christian Male power structure
Well, I guess that most of the "illegals" are Mexican or Central American, which is predominantly Catholic Christian, and are also predominantly male. Even if they bring all their extended families, they will still be 50% male
SO I GUESS ITS THE NON WHITE BIT THAT GETS TO HIM!!!
Oh no! Old rich white males are being oppressed again! Sound the alarms!<a href="[link to www.prosebeforehos.com] - As of the 2006 congress, 83.7% of the Congress is male, while the percentage of males of the voting age population (18 plus) is only 48.4. If this is further evaluated to include the over-representation of white males, the figure is even more staggering: 36.3% of the voting age population are white males, yet there are 79 White Male senators making up the Senate (79%).</b></a>
f u
Bill O'Reilly: We must secure the existence of our people, and the future for white children.
Well, not really, but he might as well say it.
Did Media Matters not pick up on the first time Bill introduced the above cited "white, male Christian" fears? It was several days earlier, and he was speaking to, of all people, Michelle Malkin and one of Fox's "Democratic strategist" female guests. Ms. Malkin and the other guest appeared to be at a loss for words at the outburst. Bill puts his racial issues right out there on the table with this one, but the reference to gender is also interesting, as it would seem to have little to do with the immigration issue, proper. Let us not forget that Bill has reached that 'certain age,' where, as far as getting female companionship, it's now all about money. I suspect there's more than a measure of bitterness going on here, particularly in light of the recent, very embarassing Andrea Mackris incident. Quite the psychosocial study, our Bill.