Arnold for Prez?
- Thread starter ShoeshineBoy
- Start date
Quote from waggie945:
Gee Mav, do you also put positions on in your trading account based on absolute terms, or a percentage of the capital that you are trading with?
Actually, don't get back to me on that.
I think that I already know the answer!
LOL!
Waggie why is this so hard for you to understand. If we Americans were taking illegals and then redistributing them accordingly to each state that would make sense. But the illegals are clearly making a choice here. Lets look at all the numbers here and I'll give you an example.
Estimated Distribution of the Illegal Alien Population
State Low Estimate High Estimate
Alabama 24,000 38,000
Alaska 5,000 8,000
Arizona 283,000 444,000
Arkansas 27,000 42,000
California 2,209,000 3,466,000
Colorado 144,000 226,000
Connecticut 39,000 61,000
Dist. of Columbia 7,000 11,000
Delaware 10,000 16,000
Florida 337,000 529,000
Georgia 228,000 358,000
Hawaii 2,000 3,000
Idaho 19,000 30,000
Illinois 432,000 678,000
Indiana 45,000 71,000
Iowa 24,000 38,000
Kansas 47,000 74,000
Kentucky 15,000 24,000
Louisiana 5,000 8,000
Maine 2,250 4,000
Maryland 56,000 88,000
Massachusetts 87,000 136,000
Michigan 70,000 110,000
Minnesota 60,000 94,000
Mississippi 8,000 13,000
Missouri 22,000 35,000
Montana 2,250 4,000
Nebraska 24,000 38,000
Nevada 101,000 158,000
New Hampshire 2,250 4,000
New Jersey 221,000 347,000
New Mexico 39,000 61,000
New York 489,000 767,000
North Carolina 206,000 323,000
North Dakota 2,250 4,000
Ohio 40,000 63,000
Oklahoma 46,000 72,000
Oregon 90,000 141,000
Pennsylvania 49,000 77,000
Rhode Island 16,000 25,000
South Carolina 36,000 56,000
South Dakota 2,250 4,000
Tennessee 46,000 72,000
Texas 1,041,000 1,633,000
Utah 65,000 102,000
Vermont 2,250 4,000
Virginia 103,000 162,000
Washington 136,000 213,000
West Virginia 2,250 4,000
Wisconsin 41,000 64,000
Wyoming 2,250 4,000
TOTAL 7,012,000 11,007,000
Low estimate is from INS in 2000
OK, take Kansas for example. The low estimate of Kansas is 47,000. Now look at Kentucky, 15,000. Now there has to be a reason why illegals are choosing Kansas over Kentucky. Kentucky has a larger population then Kansas. But why are they going to Kansas? According to you they must not have been allocated properly. But that's my point! No one is allocating the illegals. They are CHOOSING which states to go to and it has nothing to do with the total population of that state.
That logic is so stupid. That's like me asking why there are no black people in South Dakota. Shouldn't there be a certain percentage? NO! Illegals could care less if they are overcrowding a state or if by moving to state B versus State A because well State A has too many illegals already by percentage of population. You are a moron man. If you can't grasp this concept forget it, you are wasting everyone's time.
Hey Mav,
Can you tell me why Bush and his Administration is pro-tariff and in favor of PROTECTIONISM when it comes to trade?
As a Republican, I have always stood strong for FREE MARKETS as most other Republicans have and do, but for some strange reason, George Dubya is against FREE TRADE.
For some reason, our borders are porous and the INS cannot defend our Nation's security at our borders. Yet, the Bush Administration is in favor of tariffs and PROTECTIONISM.
Now Kennedy was for FREE TRADE.
Ronald Reagan was for FREE TRADE.
So was George Bush, Sr., and even Bill Clinton!
But Dubya, no way!
Can you tell me why Bush and his Administration is pro-tariff and in favor of PROTECTIONISM when it comes to trade?
As a Republican, I have always stood strong for FREE MARKETS as most other Republicans have and do, but for some strange reason, George Dubya is against FREE TRADE.
For some reason, our borders are porous and the INS cannot defend our Nation's security at our borders. Yet, the Bush Administration is in favor of tariffs and PROTECTIONISM.
Now Kennedy was for FREE TRADE.
Ronald Reagan was for FREE TRADE.
So was George Bush, Sr., and even Bill Clinton!
But Dubya, no way!
Quote from waggie945:
Hey Mav,
Can you tell me why Bush and his Administration is pro-tariff and in favor of PROTECTIONISM when it comes to trade?
As a Republican, I have always stood strong for FREE MARKETS as most other Republicans have and do, but for some strange reason, George Dubya is against FREE TRADE.
For some reason, our borders are porous and the INS cannot defend our Nation's security at our borders. Yet, the Bush Administration is in favor of tariffs and PROTECTIONISM.
Now Kennedy was for FREE TRADE.
Ronald Reagan was for FREE TRADE.
So was George Bush, Sr., and even Bill Clinton!
But Dubya, no way!
Waggie don't change the subject.
I do not agree with Bush's stance on free trade. He is clearly trying to protect american jobs and lock up votes for next year's election. You know everyone is giving him such a hard time because of all the jobs lost the last three years, then when he takes a stance to keep many more jobs from leaving the country he gets attacked. Makes me glad that I'm not President. You can please some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time.
Why don't you tell me now why illegals are shunning Kentucky for Kansas. This should be really interesting.
For the sake of argument, even if one were to agree with the absolute numbers that are being estimated by www.fairus.org the fact of the matter is that ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A FEDERAL ISSUE which has not properly been addressed let alone ENFORCED BY CONGRESS, and as a result, has wound-up costing State and Local governments ( ie. California ) hundreds of millions of dollars.
Maverick, in case you didn't know . . . back in 1994,all of those LIBERAL CALIFORNIA voters passed Proposition 187 with 59% of the vote and it became law the next day. Proposition 187's provisions require California law enforcement, social services, health care and public personnel to:
1. Verify the immigration status of persons with whom they come in contact.
2. Notify certain defined persons of their immigration status.
3. Report those persons to state and federal officials;
4. And deny those persons social services, health care, and education.
In 1995, the above State Proposition 187 was then deemed "unconstitutional" because it pre-empted the Federal governement's exclusive constitutional authority over the regulation of immigration, Congress' exercise of that power through the Immigration and Nationality Act, and other federal statutes.
Thus, until the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA interprets the 14th Amendment to NOT include the offspring of illegal aliens, states like California will continue to have to foot the bill for illegal aliens that are giving birth on American soil.
In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers at a total cost of $215.2 million according to www.fairus.org In fact, illegal alien mothers accounted for 36% of all Medi-Cal funded births in California for that year! Moreover, the estimate for the total number of illegal alien "anchor" babies from the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993.
Obviously, the CALIFORNIA ECONOMY is much more diverse and productive than that of Arizona. The sheer size of the economy is enough to attract illegal aliens to come to California to seek work, most of which is menial labor in Agriculture and Homebuilding. Moreover, the fact that Proposition 187 was deemed "unconstitutional" by a federal court further enhances the PERCEPTION that California is an attractive place for illegals to come to.
Until the UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND GEORGE BUSH COME TO REALISTIC 21st CENTURY TERMS WITH THE 14th AMENDMENT, AND THE INS ENFORCES IMMIGRATION LAW, economically attractive states like California are going to continue to see their resources and budget sapped by illegal immigration.
Maverick, I hate to break it to you but the RED CARPET that you speak of that attracts illegal aliens to California is a Federal Red Carpet!
In the meantime, our beloved President and his administration is trying to extend amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26788
Maverick, in case you didn't know . . . back in 1994,all of those LIBERAL CALIFORNIA voters passed Proposition 187 with 59% of the vote and it became law the next day. Proposition 187's provisions require California law enforcement, social services, health care and public personnel to:
1. Verify the immigration status of persons with whom they come in contact.
2. Notify certain defined persons of their immigration status.
3. Report those persons to state and federal officials;
4. And deny those persons social services, health care, and education.
In 1995, the above State Proposition 187 was then deemed "unconstitutional" because it pre-empted the Federal governement's exclusive constitutional authority over the regulation of immigration, Congress' exercise of that power through the Immigration and Nationality Act, and other federal statutes.
Thus, until the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA interprets the 14th Amendment to NOT include the offspring of illegal aliens, states like California will continue to have to foot the bill for illegal aliens that are giving birth on American soil.
In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers at a total cost of $215.2 million according to www.fairus.org In fact, illegal alien mothers accounted for 36% of all Medi-Cal funded births in California for that year! Moreover, the estimate for the total number of illegal alien "anchor" babies from the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993.
Obviously, the CALIFORNIA ECONOMY is much more diverse and productive than that of Arizona. The sheer size of the economy is enough to attract illegal aliens to come to California to seek work, most of which is menial labor in Agriculture and Homebuilding. Moreover, the fact that Proposition 187 was deemed "unconstitutional" by a federal court further enhances the PERCEPTION that California is an attractive place for illegals to come to.
Until the UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND GEORGE BUSH COME TO REALISTIC 21st CENTURY TERMS WITH THE 14th AMENDMENT, AND THE INS ENFORCES IMMIGRATION LAW, economically attractive states like California are going to continue to see their resources and budget sapped by illegal immigration.
Maverick, I hate to break it to you but the RED CARPET that you speak of that attracts illegal aliens to California is a Federal Red Carpet!
In the meantime, our beloved President and his administration is trying to extend amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26788
Waggie, thank you for extending me an invitation to come to California, specifically Contra Costa County to check your voter registration record. I see you also extended an invitation to Maverick 74 to do the same. See below:
"I stated in a previous thread that I voted for Tom McClintock.
Everyone on this board is aware of that, especially after the posting by "reflexive-trader".
"If you want to continue to challenge that, take a trip to the Voters Registration Office in Contra Costa County to verify that I am a registered REPUBLICAN."
***
I think I will verify your voter registration. However, in order to verify this information I will need your real full name and address.
Please submit your information here.
"I stated in a previous thread that I voted for Tom McClintock.
Everyone on this board is aware of that, especially after the posting by "reflexive-trader".
"If you want to continue to challenge that, take a trip to the Voters Registration Office in Contra Costa County to verify that I am a registered REPUBLICAN."
***
I think I will verify your voter registration. However, in order to verify this information I will need your real full name and address.
Please submit your information here.
If California is a socialist state, why do we have a Republican Governor?
If California were a socialist state, why did California recall Davis?
Try thinking before speaking.
Well, the tide has turned in California. Under Davis it was as close to socialism as you will find in this country. Any state that that wants to take 120,000 out of every million I make and redistribute that money to others in California is socialism. That's on top of the 350,000 the us government takes from me. Now you may think that is justified because it goes towards "the greater good" of society but I do not. That's my opinion. And if you forcibly take it from me that's socialism. Personally I believe in a national sales tax with no federal or state income taxes.
And recalling Davis was the greatest thing California ever did. It spoke volumes about the outrage in that state. It showed me at least there is hope for change there, that maybe, just maybe, people in that state can start to be responsible for their own lives instead of depending on the government to help them.