Over Reaction to High School Project

[Glocksman]

If your healthcare system wasn't so fucked it wouldn't be a problem in the first place

I agree with you 100%, but that's for another thread.

But if they are working in your country your country's government should provide them with healthcare, end of story.

I'd qualify that with working legally, but I agree otherwise.

Out of curiosity, what'd happen in Canada to an illegal immigrant who needs health care, expensive or otherwise?
The reason so many illegals use ER's here is because by law, a hospital ER cannot turn anyone away who needs treatment.
But the law doesn't reimburse hospitals for the costs incurred by treating indigent patients, so it's merely passed on to the paying customers.

[brianeyci]

If your healthcare system wasn't so fucked it wouldn't be a problem in the first place

I agree with you 100%, but that's for another thread.

But if they are working in your country your country's government should provide them with healthcare, end of story.

I'd qualify that with working legally, but I agree otherwise.

Out of curiosity, what'd happen in Canada to an illegal immigrant who needs health care, expensive or otherwise?
The reason so many illegals use ER's here is because by law, a hospital ER cannot turn anyone away who needs treatment.
But the law doesn't reimburse hospitals for the costs incurred by treating indigent patients, so it's merely passed on to the paying customers.

Well my dad was illegal. I tell you this under the assumption you not use that against me in any immigration debates, or I'll hunt you down and gut you . Now he's dead, but he got serious cancer treatment before he passed away. It must have cost hundreds of thousands. But he ran a bar, and gave work to dozens of Canadians. It seems worth it. He raised me, a Canadian. In the end all that expensive treatment did absolutely nothing but prolong his suffering. If my dad had been denied treatment because of his illegal status, I would have been very angry but I would have understood the logic.

The ER's in the US don't have to treat or cure a person, only keep them alive. It's the same deal with uninsured people, right? So how can a hospital go bankrupt, unless the healthcare system is so fucked up that this kind of shit is routine because hospitals have to make a profit?

The problems in Canada and the US are not comparable because you have a second/third world country right at your doorstep. You should consider opening large numbers of clinics to take the burden off the hospital ER system, free clinics to help illegals which are working. They are working, they are contributing to your economy so basic healthcare should be available to them. That's what they did here to deal with the pressure with ER's, not with illegals but the method can be the same. People will go to the clinics because they're faster than waiting in an ER room, and they could treat minor problems and refer to the hospital only in acute cases, and only if the person was legal. The clinics wouldn't have the equipment or the expertise or the staff to do expensive treatments.

And open a 1-800 line for people to get in contact with nurses, so people with minor problems don't go to ER. And get a national homecare program, so the elderly are treated at home instead of dying in a hospital bed. And lower prescription drug costs by funding research at universities rather than for profit pharmaceuticals, who whine about generic drugs and then go on to make obscene profits. All this of course, requires a complete change in direction and policy in the highest levels of government and even Obama or Hillary's plans don't go far enough.

Your country is fucked man, move to Canada .

[SirNitram]

Strayhorn's study has come in for it's share of criticism.

If business can't hire cheap illegal labor, they'll hire legal labor and pay more to attract it.

You do realize this is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement about the costs of illegals on the government, and is now moving to a totally new criticism? In that case, concession accepted.

[SirNitram]

At this point I would rather concede the entire cost argument, mainly because this is what the pro-immigration lobby has been doing for years: making graphs and trying to compile statistics to prove their point that immigrants don't cost the government money.

How fucking dare someone use data and research to prove their points.

[Glocksman]

Strayhorn's study has come in for it's share of criticism.

If business can't hire cheap illegal labor, they'll hire legal labor and pay more to attract it.

You do realize this is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement about the costs of illegals on the government, and is now moving to a totally new criticism? In that case, concession accepted.

Concession not offered because Strayhorn's own study concludes that Texas's local governments bear over a billion dollars in costs that aren't made up in taxes paid by the illegals.

"Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received. However, local governments bore the burden of $1.44 billion in uncompensated health care costs and local law enforcement costs not paid for by the state,"

[SirNitram]

Then I'm wrong on that point. Conceded.

[brianeyci]

At this point I would rather concede the entire cost argument, mainly because this is what the pro-immigration lobby has been doing for years: making graphs and trying to compile statistics to prove their point that immigrants don't cost the government money.

How fucking dare someone use data and research to prove their points.

You miss my point. Every time one of these debates comes up, the whole cost argument comes up, one side gives their data and the other side gives their data. I do not understand it all: do you, when an academic says one thing and another academic says another? It is rather obvious that someone who is paid ten bucks an hour or less will cost the government money, and I'd rather give them that point. If the people of America are too stupid to digest the data, then so be it: no headway or traction is being made, and meanwhile the problem keeps getting worse.

The legal illegal debate reminds me of the abortion anti-abortion debate in America. Both sides have become so polarized they give zero ground, many pro-abortion adovcates convinced a woman can abort no matter the time and the pro-life saying a woman can never abort, ever. Glocksman says hospitals are going bankrupt because of illegals: this is happening, so saying illegals don't cost money doesn't change a whit. I would rather admit it, and go bail out those hospitals than argue illegals don't cost money.

And make enough legals so the illegal economy self-destructs.

[SirNitram]

You miss my point. Every time one of these debates comes up, the whole cost argument comes up, one side gives their data and the other side gives their data. I do not understand it all: do you, when an academic says one thing and another academic says another? It is rather obvious that someone who is paid ten bucks an hour or less will cost the government money, and I'd rather give them that point. If the people of America are too stupid to digest the data, then so be it: no headway or traction is being made, and meanwhile the problem keeps getting worse.

The legal illegal debate reminds me of the abortion anti-abortion debate in America. Both sides have become so polarized they give zero ground, many pro-abortion adovcates convinced a woman can abort no matter the time and the pro-life saying a woman can never abort, ever. Glocksman says hospitals are going bankrupt because of illegals: this is happening, so saying illegals don't cost money doesn't change a whit. I would rather admit it, and go bail out those hospitals than argue illegals don't cost money.

And make enough legals so the illegal economy self-destructs.

Nice Golden Means there, asshole. Both sides are 'polarized'? Where do you get this bongwater you chug?

Of course, I'm not claiming illegals don't cost money, and I'm not aware of any reputable data suggesting they don't. But the 'cost' picture is as ridiculously overblown as the 'legal' angle; I don't see very many 'raids' performed for DWIs or other misdermeaners.

The short-term net fiscal cost on the country.. Federal, local, state.. Is around ten billion dollars, according to one of the 'think tanks' employed to produce anti-immigration data. Even this biased source puts the net costs of immigration as about the same as Morgan Stanley just wrote down from it's bad loans. Is anyone raiding fucking Wall Street to grab people for that? No?

[brianeyci]

Nice Golden Means there, asshole. Both sides are 'polarized'? Where do you get this bongwater you chug?

Of course, I'm not claiming illegals don't cost money, and I'm not aware of any reputable data suggesting they don't. But the 'cost' picture is as ridiculously overblown as the 'legal' angle; I don't see very many 'raids' performed for DWIs or other misdermeaners.

The short-term net fiscal cost on the country.. Federal, local, state.. Is around ten billion dollars, according to one of the 'think tanks' employed to produce anti-immigration data. Even this biased source puts the net costs of immigration as about the same as Morgan Stanley just wrote down from it's bad loans. Is anyone raiding fucking Wall Street to grab people for that? No?

You have never seen the protests with "no person is illegal"?

Like it or not both sides are polarized. This is not a golden mean: this is an observation based on the fact there's pro-immigration people out there who believe that nobody is illegal and they are very vocal about it. At least, they are vocal up here. I am assuming such communities are very vocal down there, from the limited news coverage I've seen.

It is simply not a huge concession to say that immigration costs money. Helping poorer people will always cost money, and this is logical. Integration is a painful, long-term process and there's many hidden costs like education, healthcare and all the government services they use. If there weren't, people like Glocksman wouldn't be concerned, and Glocksman is the moderates you're trying to win over. I could care less about the xenophobes, and helping the poor has the side effect of winning over some of the religious people who want to help poor.

[SirNitram]

Nice Golden Means there, asshole. Both sides are 'polarized'? Where do you get this bongwater you chug?

Of course, I'm not claiming illegals don't cost money, and I'm not aware of any reputable data suggesting they don't. But the 'cost' picture is as ridiculously overblown as the 'legal' angle; I don't see very many 'raids' performed for DWIs or other misdermeaners.

The short-term net fiscal cost on the country.. Federal, local, state.. Is around ten billion dollars, according to one of the 'think tanks' employed to produce anti-immigration data. Even this biased source puts the net costs of immigration as about the same as Morgan Stanley just wrote down from it's bad loans. Is anyone raiding fucking Wall Street to grab people for that? No?

You have never seen the protests with "no person is illegal"?

Oh look, Brian's illiterate. 'Reputable Data' != Signs in a protest. What next, are you going to argue that 'GOD HATES FAGS' signs are reputable sources for the mainstream GOP?

Like it or not both sides are polarized. This is not a golden mean: this is an observation based on the fact there's pro-immigration people out there who believe that nobody is illegal and they are very vocal about it. At least, they are vocal up here. I am assuming such communities are very vocal down there, from the limited news coverage I've seen.

More of the blatant strawman, more of the golden mean. Why don't you try this post again from the top, reading mine, and actually rebutting it.

It is simply not a huge concession to say that immigration costs money. Helping poorer people will always cost money, and this is logical. Integration is a painful, long-term process and there's many hidden costs like education, healthcare and all the government services they use. If there weren't, people like Glocksman wouldn't be concerned, and Glocksman is the moderates you're trying to win over. I could care less about the xenophobes, and helping the poor has the side effect of winning over some of the religious people who want to help poor.

Yep, totally fucking illiterate. Go the fuck away and come back when you can discuss this honestly, you bongwater-chugging golden mean false-centrist whore. I said they cost money, I don't give a shit about protestors, and you are engaging in a golden mean when you spew this 'Both sides are polarized' screed.

[brianeyci]

Hey Nitram: fuck you

This is what happened:

Glocksman: Illegals cost money.

SirNitram: Rebuttal, either that illegals don't cost money (what I assumed) or some kind of fucking red herring.

Me: Maybe it's not such a bad idea to say that immigration costs money. After all, saying it doesn't cost money doesn't solve the issue.

You: Some kind of bullshit, because you don't like my compromise style, and thinks compromise is "assholish."

Why don't you fucking ask Glocksman what happened?

I am done here. Maybe you can get your head out of your ass. I made no claim that both sides were equally illogical or equally terrible: in fact, given the choice, I would sit with the pro-immigration side becuase they're by and large not racist or xenophobes. But apparently you took "polarized" to mean "both sides are equally terrible" and interpreted it as a golden fucking mean. Asking both sides to compromise is not admitting the existence of a golden mean fuckass. This is a politics forum, discussing politics, and by and large politics requires compromise and all the fallacy naming in the world won't change that. By the way, Mike has on several occasions said that a community is judged by its most vocal and influential members, so it is fair to judge the sides as polarized. But apparently you don't want to. Suit yourself, and see how many moderates you convince.

[SirNitram]

Hey Nitram: fuck you

This is what happened:

Glocksman: Illegals cost money.

SirNitram: Rebuttal, either that illegals don't cost money (what I assumed) or some kind of fucking red herring.

Or, you know, me showing that the costs are far less than expected. But no, you can't be bothered to read.

Me: Maybe it's not such a bad idea to say that immigration costs money. After all, saying it doesn't cost money doesn't solve the issue.

You forgot where you totally failed to read what was being discussed. But hey, kiddo, fuck off and play in traffic.

You: Some kind of bullshit, because you don't like my compromise style, and thinks compromise is "assholish."

'Compromise'? You proposed no 'compromise'. You spewed golden means and nonsense. I called you on it. You whine and ignore what I wrote because it contained a big word like 'reputable'.

Or 'The'.

Why don't you fucking ask Glocksman what happened?

Because I've conceded my point to him, and am not debating it when I've conceded. I'm flaming you because you spew nonsense without reading.

I am done here. Maybe you can get your head out of your ass. I made no claim that both sides were equally illogical or equally terrible: in fact, given the choice, I would sit with the pro-immigration side becuase they're by and large not racist or xenophobes. But apparently you took "polarized" to mean "both sides are equally terrible" and interpreted it as a golden fucking mean. Asking both sides to compromise is not admitting the existence of a golden mean fuckass. This is a politics forum, discussing politics, and by and large politics requires compromise and all the fallacy naming in the world won't change that. By the way, Mike has on several occasions said that a community is judged by its most vocal and influential members, so it is fair to judge the sides as polarized. But apparently you don't want to. Suit yourself, and see how many moderates you convince.

Shorter Brianyeci: WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU EXPECT ME TO READ POSTS ADDRESSED AT ME! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME ON MY FALLACIES! YOU'RE MEAN! I'M GOING HOME!!!!!!!!!!

Suck it up, fuckstick. You didn't read my post before you spewed out crap, you got flamed.

[The Star Marshall]

Just two quick points;.

One: this a Spanish V class so Spanish speaking culture and society are part of the lesson plan not just learning the language.

Indeed it is, but there's more than just Mexicans who speak Spanish.
If this is one in a series of cultural activities WRT various Spanish speaking countries and regions, I don't have much of a problem with it.

However if this is the only roleplay project she assigns, then it looks more suspicious.

Good point. As I understand it this is the only "roleplaying" project in the class but she does do various other projects involving different spanish cultures. The differences in the projects are mainly to keep the students interested, you don't want to keep giving them the same project over and over again with small changes, you'll just lose their attention and bore them.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If they're doing it all in spanish, it sounds like a fine way to learn. I actually dropped Spanish IV in highschool, if she can make spanish V interesting, more power to her.

Now, if for a writing assignment she had them send letters to their state assemblymen about how horrible immigration policies were, we'd have something worth discussing.