Tuesday, February 15, 2011

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest the following politicians

The following legislators think that having Oregon taxpayers subsidize the college tuition of illegal aliens is a good idea:

Oregon State Senators David Nelson (R-Pendleton), Frank Morse (R-Albany) and Chip Shields (D-Portland), Oregon State Representatives Michael Dembrow (D-Portland), Mark Johnson (R-Hood River), Bob Jenson (R-Pendleton) and Chris Harker (D-Beaverton)

Feel free to contact them and ask why an American citizen from Vancouver, Washington should pay out of state tuition but someone who does not have a legal presence in Oregon should pay less. Is it so that the illegal alien can get a better paying job that they can't legally have?


Anonymous said...

Why not! It isn't their money. What the hell lets just raise taxes. Com'on in! We are open for illegal aliens. Sure the country has 30,000,000 illegals today but I think we can afford another 30 million! Lets take Social Security and Medicare away from the old folks so we can take care of the new voters from Mexico...

Anonymous said...

Compared to taxpayers subsidizing wars of opportunity abroad, the military budgets of other nations, and military bases on practically every scrap of dry land on the planet, paying college tuition for "illegal aliens" really doesn't seem like that big of a deal. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest Miglavia!

DAVE01 said...

ANON 9:16 AM I don't mind military bases on some scraps of dry land on the planet if it helps us kill our enemies. It's cheaper and quicker to move supplies from some scrap of dry land to support our troops than to move the supplies from the US. It's a cheap investment.

Subsidizing college tuition for criminal aliens does nothing but steal from American taxpayers and children. It increases our debt, increases unemployment, increases more Americans losing their homes and having their lives and families destroyed, increases more pressure on our social services and it increases our road to third world status.

There is not one positive reason why this actually benefits me, my family, my community, my state or my country.

So easy a cave man could figure it out.

Anonymous said...

Well, since we've managed to make enemies of literally dozens of countries around the world in the last 50 or 60 years, I suppose you don't -- no, you really can't -- have any moral objection if and when they try to kill us, yes?

Live by the sword ...

Anonymous said...

Dave01, Trying to inject some modicum of common sense into the likes of Anonymouse 9:16 is like farting into the wind. One can only hope that some illegal criminal alien will take 9:16's job, if he actually has one, and leave him outside wondering what the hell happened. Maybe then, emphasis on "maybe", he will figure out that standing up for illegals is not the way to go.


DAVE01 said...

Scottie, I can't figure out why bank robbers are not given the same rights, privileges as criminal aliens. After all, they are just trying to support their families. Their children should be given in state tuition, drivers licenses and all other bennies. In fact, bank robbers are good for society.

They take money that is insured and insignificant (to the federal budget), they let the police practice their profession, they create some excitement and they help sell news. If nobody gets hurt in the process, it's an all around win-win situation.

Anonymous said...

Dave, how long have you been a bigot?

Anonymous said...

3:13 Shut the hell up and put on your Burqa. And from now on... you do not speak unless spoken too... Get that?

and 9:15 you too

Anonymous said...

3:13 Shut the hell up and put on your Burqa. And from now on... you do not speak unless spoken too... Get that?

and 9:15 you too

DAVE01 said...

ANON 10:21 AM
I advocate that we use all our own resources. We wouldn't be making enemies by sticking our noses into everyone's business if we used our own resources. The enviro nuts have drove us to this position.

ANON 3:13 PM
I'm assuming you meant I'm bigoted against bank robbers. Shit, they just take and want all these special privileges. They dont' want to suffer the consequences if they get caught. Hell, they even call it racist if they are caught and forced to do time. They want to keep the loot if they get caught and they want their children to have extra benefits that most Americans won't get.

Anonymous said...

So to summarize, Miglavian 3:46, you basically presume that anyone who says something you don't agree with is a female Muslim? Or ought to be?

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Beavis. Or is it Butt-head?

Anonymous said...

Hillarious. There are more Republicans cosponsoring the bill than Democrats. At least Republicans are getting it that being a racist bigot won't get you anywhere. I bet the turds at ofir are crapping themselves. First Defazio and now this.

Anonymous said...

4:22 no, you are daft. now go to your corner and shut the hell up.

Anonymous said...

Butt-head, then.

DAVE01 said...

ANON 6:46 PM
It's ok for hispanics, mexicans in particular to be racist but it's not ok for Americans to be racist? I would assume with your attacking somebody by calling them racist that you don't like racists. You have a fucked up logic.

I bet you are from mexico or some other racist country. With your logic, I can understand why you want the criminal alien hispanics since in their culture it's ok to rape young teenage girls. You probably are raping them or want to and figure if we get enough of the child raping cultures in this country, it will become an accepted way of life. Pedophile.

Anonymous said...

ANON 6:46 PM
This bill violates federal law and is a waste of time and money.

Anonymous said...

Dave, I don't even know who the guy is, but when addressing someone you disagree with and you start a sentence with the phrase, "I bet you are ...," here's my suggestion: Save yourself the embarrassment and don't finish the sentence.

Anonymous said...

The only one making racist remarks seems to be Dave. I wonder why he is projecting. You must live in a backwater town where everyone is of White European Heritage.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but wonder if Dave is projecting too when he accuses someone of posting from his mother's basement. The criterion for such an accusation? Say something he disagrees with. I always love Dave's "arguments."

Anonymous said...

Hmmm. So you never delete posts, Miglavs? Well if you're not, someone is. Twice now. So much for freedom of speech in Miglavia.

DAVE01 said...

What did I say that was racist? Mexicans are a nationality and are very racist. It's in their constitution and I'm sure it's taught in their schools by they way they behave in our country and their country. Have any of you read the mexican constitution? Go down there and behave like they do in our country and see what happens. March in their streets with an American flag and demand rights. That would be fucking hilarious.

Where have I said anything racist? I'm simply pointing out facts. Is it now racist to point out a fact?

ANON 5:37 PM the reason I say that is because there is not one valid reason to have these people here unless you are profiting from them, have a relative who is one, are one yourself or want our laws to become like their (having sex with a young girl is their culture). I've heard all the excuses why we should keep them here and not one is valid. Not one! If you can come up with one, that I can't prove wrong, I'll concede that point. The sob stories are not valid. We can't afford them and rewarding criminal behavior for their children is not valid either. As I posted previously, the bank robber gets punished too and his/her children do not get to keep the loot. With the high unemployment alone they should have all been rounded up and deported years ago.

TJ said...

Dave, here's my reason.

Two lessons from history, which cannot be denied are:

1) Human beings have always been compelled to move from one point to another for any number of reasons -- to hunt, to work, to live, to farm, to flee oppression, etc. That is a truism that predates all national boundaries. That will never change.

2) Social and economic change frequently lags behind economic change. Put another way: It often takes time for the law to catch up with the reality of life on the ground.

Given the above, my position is this: The immigration laws of this country are unfair, unjust, and behind the times, and ought to be repealed so people of all nations may live and work where they wish with an absolute minimum of interference by the government. They don't work (at least not like you want them to work), they have never worked, and they never will. There is clearly a market demand for the labor of workers from South America here, jobs that Americans are largely either unwilling or unable to do. (Could you squat in a field for ten hours and pick 70 crates of strawberries?)

My position is one of principle. I am not profiting from illegal immigration, I have never hired one, none of my relatives are illegal immigrants, and I am not one myself. It is perfectly reasonable, natural and historically traditional for people to go where the work is, and the only reason some people who do so are "criminals" is because the government says they are.

My position is that it's time to stop saying that, and the way we do it is either dramatically lift immigration levels or repeal the laws altogether, and grant amnesty to those who are here.

You can disagree with my position, but why is it so hard for you to understand that this is a position held by many Americans other than yourself?

DAVE01 said...

TJ, that is one of the more honest responses I've ever heard. Thanks for it. I want to think about my responses to your post. Are you a socialist (I also call them commies because socialism is about halfway to communism and I believe communism is evil. Communism murdered about a hundred million people last century. Halfway to evil is still evil in my opinion).

I'll try to respond by saturday at the latest.

TJ said...

How about holding off on political labels for now and just addressing the substance of my position? What does it matter what I am? The position as I've outlined it is held by people in many parties, both mainstream and otherwise. Granted, you won't find a lot of Republicans who feel this way, but I know for a fact that there are some, because they are friends and family. (Conversely, I also have a good friend who is a Democrat who holds pretty much the same position as you do on immigration.)It doesn't matter what I am. Or it shouldn't. I've outlined my position as clearly as I can.

DAVE01 said...

1. This may be true; however, in current times (since the beginning of our country) our country is a nation of laws and what happened before with migrating humans should not determine how we enforce our laws. If you think that should determine how we enforce our laws, I want your address because there are many people who need to migrate to your house to hunt, to work, to live, to farm, to flee oppression, etc. We could go one step further and eliminate all private property so people could migrate as they see fit and live anywhere and anyplace according to their needs.

You are saying the laws should catch up with the reality on the ground. I'm going to use one example. Dumbed down schools throughout the country. A prime example is California. In the seventies they had some of the best public schools in the country and they are shitholes now. I can't see how anyone would say that is a positive thing. California has massive illegal and legal immigration and look at the state of their state. It's in the shitter. The land of milk and honey is the land of parasites, criminal aliens, massive public debt and regulations.

This country allows the most amount of legal immigration on the planet. That says a lot. If we don't limit the number of immigrants, we will become another third world shithole. That may not matter to you but it matters to me. Too many areas of our country are already experiencing that. There has to be a rational number of new people into this country. If we dilute our citizenship we will be nothing special. That may be okay with you, but it's not okay with me.

If we allow unlimited migration, our children's future will be sacrificed and I won't allow that. You may not think we have something special here but I do and I won't give it up. My grand children deserve better.

You will also be condemning people in other countries to a more miserable existence. An example of this is south of our border. Some people can and will leave (like men who leave their families) and other family members suffer. Families are being destroyed because of our immigration policy or lack of enforcing it.

I just imagined thirty million people moving into our country in the next year or so because of your reasons. That would destroy our infrastructure. Five years later they move to another area because they are needed more there. That sounds like a lot of locusts moving from area to area and using up the resources before moving on to the next area. Sounds like Independence Day movie. I could also imagine massive race and religious conflicts.

TJ said...


Migration is not simply something that "happened before." It happens because on a planet with finite resources, different climates, and a whole host of other factors, people must move around. You and I see the world differently: You see yourself first and foremost, I suspect, as an American -- which, in a way, is a form of identity politics. I see us, all of us, as first and primarily human. We live on this planet, together.

The suggestion that this viewpoint means I should open the doors to my own house to let anyone live in it is a ridiculous non-argument. I support freedom of speech, too, but that doesn't mean I believe a person should stand up in church and scream profanity, or that you can scream "fire" in a crowded theater. Just because I believe people should be able to drive doesn't mean I think they should be able to run stop signs and go a hundred miles an hour through school zones.

I'm glad you cited the example of California, which is an excellent example of how our economic system, with its all-important drive for profit, has left schools (and other public services there) high and dry. College tuition there used to be totally subsidized, and anyone could go to college and get a good education. No longer. This is somewhat of a simplification, granted, but your suggestion that schools there have gone down the toilet because of illegal immigration is also a gross simplification. California is a hugely complex situation, worthy of another thread entirely.

Finally, you assume that with open borders, we'd be overwhelmed. I don't believe that's true. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, more people would use drugs than do now, but not everyone would. I should know: I'm one of them. I've never used drugs, never will.

An interesting discussion. Thanks for taking time to go into more detail.

DAVE01 said...

TJ, You will be letting the door remain wide open of America. It's already been wide open since the beginning of our country. I do see my self as an American and part of the human race. We all all humans on this planet. We are not all Americans. Being an American is something special in my book.

With your second paragraph you seem to agree with reasonable limits on freedom of speech. Why cannot that be applied to immigration to our country?

I brought up CA because of the massive illegal and legal immigration. Infrastructure can only handle so much growth. Illegal and legal immigration is one part of the problem in CA. However, it is a large part. Education of the illegal children has to be several billion a year. I can't remember the last deficit they said, but it's in the tens of billions. The education could be easily 10% of their deficit or more. Along with the other freebies the kids get, incarceration and medication of the illegal population could very well be almost half of their budget deficit. Stopping all that money being spent on them would start to fix the problem.

The country and states are going broke. They have to stop spending so much money. That is reality and no amount of moving money around or taxing the rich will solve the problems. They have to stop the bleeding somehow.

I have been educating myself on this subject of illegal immigration for four or five years now. Like I said, there is not one reason why they should be here.

The numbers you hear of 10-12 million illegals here is a total bullshit number. That number was estimated in 2006- or 2007 or earlier. I'm sure a few more border jumped, and overstayed their visas since then. The true number has to be at least double or triple that number. If we had 25 million illegals which is 8% of our population and we have 9-10% unemployment, we could toss out the illegal tomorrow and that would solve most of our unemployment problem.

In addition, there would be many lives of Americans saved. I think that is worth the effort to toss the illegals out. The House did a report in 2007 called the line in the sand.
Here is the link:

The federal prison population is almost 30% illegal aliens. That one fact alone would prove that tossing the illegal out would drop the more serious crimes by 30%. Toss out the mexicans alone and that number would drop by 17%. A few years ago I called the federal bureau of prisons and had them send me a report on the makeup on the population of federal prisons. Those are facts I state from that report.

We can't afford the cost, the overwhelmed schools, the hospital tab and the prison and jail tab. We are broke for decades if not bankrupt.

Your ideas sound utopian and will not work with man. If we were all ants or bees, it might work.

My grand children deserve to have the limited resources and money spent on them, not some child of a border jumper. Yet, it will be taken from them and they won't get the quality education they are supposed to have. Like I said, I won't stand for it. They deserve better.

TJ said...

Dave, the first sentence of your response really illustrates the reasonableness of my position. You say I would be "letting the door remain wide open," when in fact, it has already (in effect) been wide open. My position is one of adapting to the realities of the marketplace. Nafta and GATT basically made it possible for the free(er) flow of capital between countries, and yet we somehow seem to think that it makes sense to do that while at the same time closing the doors to the workers that capital requires. Seen purely as a capitalist, that doesn't make any sense.

Regarding limits and free speech. Speech is not something that human beings must do (strictly speaking) in order to survive. But to survive in a capitalist society, workers must work in order to eat, clothe themselves and put a roof over their heads. If they can't do those things, free speech is a moot point.

I have to say: I am fascinated by the analogy you make with ants and bees, because I've recently been doing a lot of reading about the social life of ants and bees. What I find fascinating is this: You seem to be saying that if we were a species that lacked the capacity of human thought and reason, we would be able to construct a utopian society and get along perfectly well! But since we, as a species, do have the capacity of thought and reason, such a thing is impossible!

Do you not see a contradiction there?

By the way, I don't dispute that California has its share of problems, but illegal immigration is hardly to blame for all of them, and I have yet to hear anyone explain to me why it is that San Diego, a major city only a few miles from the border, has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and is regularly deemed as one of the "most livable."