Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Ill just paste my english essay.

Illegal immigration refers to immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Under this definition, those individuals to whom this principle applies are either foreigners who have illegally crossed an international political border, be it by land, sea, or air, or foreigners who have entered a country legally but then overstay their Visas in order to live or work within the prohibited country. Within a political context, illegal immigration is a highly controversial and often discussed social issue. Many people consider illegal immigration a benefit to the country; however, it is more detrimental than it is beneficial to the country's economy and its individual citizens' well-being.

The primary cause of illegal immigration is considered to be economic. Illegal Latino immigrants traditionally have been portrayed as seeking jobs and wages better than those available in their home countries. "The United States Department of Labor calculates that the Zone A (most industrialized) minimum wage in Mexico in 1999 was 34.45 pesos, or about US$3.50 per day. The Zone C (rural/agricultural) minimum wage was 29.70 Pesos a day, or roughly US$3.02 a day." (1). By contrast, the U.S. minimum is set at $5.85 per hour under US federal law and many states actually required rates higher than the federally mandated minimum.

Another major cause of illegal immigration is the individuals and companies employing them have few legal repercussions against them doing so. There is currently no reliable method for ensuring they are legal citizens. A common perception is that illegal immigrants create enough benefit to the country that the issue is overlooked in comparison to some of the bigger political issues such as defense and social security, which receive more financial support then illegal immigration (2).
In dealing with the issue, note the financial impact that illegal immigration has on legal, natural born citizens. A 2002 study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that households headed by illegal immigrants cost the federal government more than $1.9 billion in food assistance programs such as food stamps and free school lunches. In addition, the study found that illegal alien households created a net fiscal deficit of $10 billion annually for just the federal government. One common argument used by advocates of open borders - analysts, politicians and political groups opposed to any immigration control and enforcement efforts - is that illegal migrants have a net positive effect on local, state and national economies. On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes but impose greater costs of $6,950 a year (3).

Healthcare is a natural born right for all people within the borders of the United States. The fact illegal immigrants can receive this healthcare at no cost when natural born citizens do not (as covered by social security and Medicare) is unfair. "Forty-three percent of illegal immigrants under 65 have no health insurance. That means there are 9.4 million uninsured immigrants, most of who are illegal, and who constitute 15 percent of the total uninsured in the nation in the mid-1990s. The cost of the medical care of these uninsured immigrants is passed onto the taxpayer, and strains the financial stability of the health care community. The estimated cost of un-reimbursed medical care in 2004 in California was about $1.4 billion per year. In Texas, the estimated cost was about $850 million, and in Arizona the cost was $400 million per year" (4).

---

At 1/8/08 10:24 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Those that think cellardoor6 is correct, raise their hands. Those that think Slizor is correct, raise their hands.

I vote Slizor.

I actually thought he asked a rather good question, for NG debates in general, not just this one:

"If I don't, are they (ie, sources), by virtue of being the status quo, correct?"
Cell hasn't answered it yet though.

I'm gonna use that one myself in my own debates......it'd be quite interesting to see what some people say.......I can think of some decent arguments for both positions.......

---

At 1/8/08 10:24 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Those that think cellardoor6 is correct, raise their hands. Those that think Slizor is correct, raise their hands.

I vote Slizor.

Oh and you're totally unbiased?

The fact that I ripped apart your favorite candidate with facts you tried to ignore has nothing to do with it right?

---

At 1/8/08 10:38 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/8/08 10:24 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Those that think cellardoor6 is correct, raise their hands. Those that think Slizor is correct, raise their hands.

I vote Slizor.

I actually thought he asked a rather good question, for NG debates in general, not just this one:

Imperator, mind your own business y

"If I don't, are they (ie, sources), by virtue of being the status quo, correct?"

They are links that validate what I said.

They are correct, and unless someone provides proof to the contrary, the should be considered as such.

Slizor doesn't get to say "this doesn't count because..." without validating what he says with facts of his own. He'd have to show that the links I provided are actually wrong, instead of just his own words that claim so, in order to actually meet the very standards he imposes on someone else's arguments.

This isn't a philosophical argument. What slizor is doing, after refusing to provide any evidence, is basically stating that his own words are more credible than links and that he doesn't have to provide any proof because what he says is true, and what he doesn't think is right is automatically false.

You two would make great friends. Both incapable of providing proof, always basing arguments around semantics.

---

At 1/8/08 10:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Imperator, mind your own business

Free country.

They are links that validate what I said.

Dodge.

They are correct, and unless someone provides proof to the contrary, the should be considered as such.

So they're correct? Why? By virtue of being the only links presented, or because they actually contain correct information? Or because they validate your claims?

---

At 1/8/08 10:47 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 1/8/08 10:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Imperator, mind your own business

Free country.

Have you or have you not been told not to enter threads and ignore the topic while focusing on me?

That's what you did here, again. Did you mention the topic? No. Did you make a jab at cellardoor with the goal of provoking a fight? Ues.

They are correct, and unless someone provides proof to the contrary, the should be considered as such.

So they're correct? Why?

Reputable news sources mention studies.

Facts, my claims are backed up not only by another party, but a reputable party who make reference to studies where facts are emphasized, rather than opinions... the things that Slizor based his argument on.

By virtue of being the only links presented, or because they actually contain correct information?

By virtue of them being links to sources that are credible, and that are therefore likely to contain correct information.

Or because they validate your claims?

I made claims, I backed those claims up with something other than my own opinion. I used links that validated what I claimed. Slizor doesn't like those links, he says they are wrong or faulty. He doesn't provide any links himself, yet considers his words fact... that his words alone discredit the links and therefore discredit my argument.

He has a double standard. What he says he considers to be proof in and of itself.

Oh, and by the way, just a question... have you mentioned illegal immigration even once, do you plan on doing it? Or this is another one of your "cellardoor, cellardoor, cellardoor" episodes?

I wonder.

Maybe you'll post at least 1 line about illegal immigration next post to make it appear that you didn't enter this thread with the purpose of talking shit.

---

Reputable news sources mention studies.

What makes them reputable news sources? And what makes those studies accurate?
There are many examples of studies being released publicly that were faulty or incorrect. The one that found 75% (or something like that) of women cheat on their husbands for example.

What is your basis for claiming they are sound sources?

By virtue of them being links to sources that are credible, and that are therefore likely to contain correct information.

They are "likely" to contain correct information? So you're not sure the information you presented is correct, but you claim so based on your understanding of the news source being reputable? Am I getting it right, or am I missing something?

And again, what is your basis for claiming they are sound sources?

I made claims, I backed those claims up with something other than my own opinion. I used links that validated what I claimed

But as you just stated, you are not positive the information contained in those links is correct. You assume the info is correct based on your understanding that the news source is reputable, but you haven't provided an explanation as to why.

Did you just post those links because they backed your opinion, or because you thought they were accurate?

---

There was so much to respond to I thought I'd just pick out the nub of the argument.

I made claims, I backed those claims up with something other than my own opinion. I used links that validated what I claimed. Slizor doesn't like those links, he says they are wrong or faulty. He doesn't provide any links himself, yet considers his words fact... that his words alone discredit the links and therefore discredit my argument.

He has a double standard. What he says he considers to be proof in and of itself.

To quote myself from the last page - "Look, either attempt to question the logic of my analysis of your sources (i.e. engage me in honest debate) or find other sources for your original statements." My points, then, are open for debate and clearly not proof in themselves.

Plus, I might point out, I did provide sources to base my points on - your sources. Look, from my first post

Schurman-Kauflin concluded that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegals make up a higher percentage than offenders in the general population.

She arrives at the figure of 240,000 offenders - a conservative estimate, she says - through public records showing about 2 percent of illegals apprehended are sex offenders."

So there's 12 million illegals, 2% of illegals apprehended are sex offenders....therefore 240,000. Easy......apart from the fact that it assumes that every single illegal immigrant has been arrested and patently ignores the fact that people get arrested because they commit sex crimes.

Or even

If you paid any attention to the methodology used then you would know that it does not say that. The report asked jailed illegal immigrants, not the population as a whole, how many crimes they had committed. Therefore it can not be compared with the "typical US citizen" when it comes to levels of crime as it does not profile the typical illegal immigrant.

With the point just above I'm not actually saying anything about the nature of the source, but about your interpretation of it. I could've quoted from the source where it says that it is a study of jailed illegal immigrants, but I thought it was fairly easy to find.

To sum up my point, the source of my information that I use for my analysis is your sources. What you are requiring of me is second-hand sources that provide exactly the same analysis of your sources to "prove" my argument. If I did (that's assuming that anyone has actually paid any attention to these crappy little websites and tried to rebut them) then I would not be proving anything, I would merely be showing that other people agree with me and the issue would still be open for debate.