[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

J Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Tue Jun 18 11:28:35 UTC 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Senior" <seniorr at aracnet.com>
To: <plug-talk at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)


> >>>>> "Scot" == Craighead, Scot D <craighead.scot at vectorscm.com> writes:
>
> Russell> a) look up "tyranny of the majority";
>
> Scot> This is why I support a democratic republic, not a democracy.
>
> A democratic republic isn't really any more protective against a
> "tyranny of the majority" than a direct democracy.  The democratic
> republic just protects a powerful class with better access to being
> selected as the representatives.  The representatives are just as
> capable of passing laws that violate the rights of minorities (in the
> most general sense of the word) as any other "majority rule" system.
>
> Scot> What did that have to with what I said?
>
> It has to do with you and a bunch of other that might consititute a
> majority violating the rights of a minority by requiring them to learn
> your language.  In the next 50 years, there might be more
> native-<other> speakers here than native-english speakers.  Will it be
> okay for them to replace your "official english" law with an
> "official-<other>" language and require you to learn it?
>
> Russell> I've heard it expressed.  The rationale I've heard to back it
> Russell> up sounds plausible, but I have nothing immediately at hand
> Russell> to point to.  Do you have anything to point to that supports
> Russell> the opposite conclusion?
>
> Scot> You made the statement.  It was one that defies common sense.
> Scot> The burden of proof is on you.  I just called you on it.  It is
> Scot> bologna and you know you can't back it up with anything.
>
> Try this (30 seconds with Google):
>
>   <http://www.altenforst.de/faecher/englisch/immi/howmuch2.htm>
>
> which includes:
>
>   Several recent studies were produced by government agencies
>   interested in "recovering" the costs of immigrants and non-profit
>   groups committed to reducing levels of immigration. The four
>   principal new studies are:
>
>     * Internal Services Department (ISD 1992) on recent immigrants to
>       Los Angeles County
>
>     * Rea and Parker (1992, 1993) on undocumented immigrants in San
>       Diego County
>
>     * Governor's Office of Immigration and Refugee Affairs (GOIRA
>       1993) on undocumented immigrants in Texas
>
>     * Huddle (1993), sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, on
>       post-1970 immigrants to the United States
>
>   All four studies find that immigrants impose fiscal burdens on
>   governments and native-born taxpayers. The Urban Institute's review
>   of the studies finds that they vary in quality, but the results
>   invariably overstate the negative impacts of immigrants for the
>   following reasons:
>
>     * They systematically understate tax collections from immigrants;
>
>     * They systematically overstate service costs for immigrants;
>
>     * None credit immigrants for the impact of immigrant-owned
>       businesses or the full economic benefits generated by consumer
>       spending from immigrants;
>
>     * Job displacement impacts and costs are overstated;
>
>     * They omit that parallel computations for natives that, when
>       done, show natives are use more in services than they pay in
>       taxes, too; and
>
>     * The size of the immigrant population-particularly the
>       undocumented immigrant population-tends to be
>       overstated. Huddle's (1993) findings are unusual, even in this
>       group.
>
>   While all four studies find that immigrants are a net cost to the
>   level of government studied, huddle's net cost estimates are
>   substantially higher. Huddle focuses on legal immigrants who arrived
>   in the United States between 1970 and 1992, undocumented immigrants,
>   and immigrants who legalized under the Immigration Reform and
>   Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), i.e., amnesty immigrants. Huddle
>   estimates that the net cost of these immigrants is $42.5
>   billion-$50..9 billion in governmental service costs for immigrants
>   plus $11.9 billion in costs for workers "displaced" by immigrants,
>   minus $20.2 billion in taxes collected from immigrants. The study
>   fails to take into account any positive economic impact of immigrant
>   businesses or consumer spending. It also overstates costs and
>   displacement effects. Huddle's most significant error, however, is a
>   massive understatement of revenues collected from immigrants.
>
> Russell> c) who is to say that maybe they don't want a dime of _their_
> Russell> tax money spent on documents written in english.  Do you
> Russell> really want to go down that road?
>
> Scot> Does that even make any sense?
>
> Russell> Not really, which is why what you propose doesn't make sense
> Russell> either.
>
> Scot> What I proposed makes a lot of sense, you can't even give a
> Scot> valid argument against it, which is why you are attacking me
> Scot> personally instead of my argument.
>
> You apparent inability to perceive a valid argument when it appears
> does not reasonably imply that the argument doesn't exist.
>
>
> --
> Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
> seniorr at aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
>                          profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
>                          extremely unusual.' ''
>

But Russell,

The point is the violence of cultural murder,  not fiscal issues.  At least
the first concern for me is.
History, again shows the fallacy of multiculturalism.








More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list