Get serious about immigration enforcement

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still see xenophobia creeping in

It is not about "security," if by security you mean defense against terrorists in a conventional sense. But it is about security if you mean the integrity of a national culture.

What national culture? There is no primary national culture. Serious keep this on a real issue. Lower wages. Crime. Stuff like that. I dont ahve no statistics for illegals commiting crimes but i thinbk it is a percentage of 1 percent so there fore nothing. Welfare and special education are valid points of debate.
I know many illegals work and collect welfare and unemployment at the same time.

However they are taking jobs from americans and lowering the wage rates. That is an absolute fact. Combine cheap labor with the exporting of jobs and we are totally screwed.

Nop single party is to blame. The Democrats welcome illegals for the potential votes. The repuglicans like the cheap labor and also the potential votes. Open border libertarians not even worth mentioning that lousy policy.

If you cant come up with a non racial or xenophobic reason stop dragging this thread down in the gutter.
 
Riley, just shove the sunshine and go look at any construction site. :)

long, yes, I remember what you did that's why I used the Hollywood analogy. :D Anywho we have loooong wrung our hands over the assault that those awful immigrants have on our culture--the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese, etc., ad naseum. And you know what? We're just fine. :D

There's no conspiracy to "Mexicanize" America, just as there is no conspiracy to "Irishize", "Germanize", "Polishize" or "Chinesize" America. Although if Scalia, that son of an awful, awful Italian immigrant, does become Chief Justice, there may be an attempt to "Italianize" the nation. :D
 
Ok this is wrong too

Making newborns US Citizens automatically is wrong. That is also something i believe.

According to Peter Brimelow, "By not closing this loophole, the federal government in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing illegal aliens to give birth to American citizens, in effect, makes citizenship a license for welfare."(4)

*In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36% of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.
 
for Basura Blaca and other non-believers

Start here. You should find it interesting:

http://www.fairus.org

What national culture? There is no primary national culture. Serious keep this on a real issue. Lower wages. Crime. Stuff like that. I dont ahve no statistics for illegals commiting crimes but i thinbk it is a percentage of 1 percent so there fore nothing.

The LAPD says 60 per cent of L.A. gang members are illlegal aliens. About 30 per cent of our Federal prison population is comprised of illegals aliens. There are hundreds of felons who have committed serious crimes in California and escaped back to the homeland in Mexico. Read up, you'll find the information you need.

As for believing there is no "primary national culture." Wrong. The basic givens of our historic polity did not spring from nowhere; there are clear cultural, philosophical, and social antecedents for all of them. The idea that there are no sustaining values and traditions that underpin what we value and love about American life is part of the propaganda that is every bit as dangerous, or more so, than any external terroristic threat. We have more to fear right now from what is going on in K-12 than from Osama Bin Laden. Just my opinion. It takes just one indoctrinated generation to lose a nation.
 
Making newborns US Citizens automatically is wrong. That is also something i believe.

According to Peter Brimelow, "By not closing this loophole, the federal government in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally. Allowing illegal aliens to give birth to American citizens, in effect, makes citizenship a license for welfare."(4)

Careful what you wish for...
I'll say it again, since it's not sinking in - I like the Constitution (and particularly the 14th amendment) the way it is. Suggesting that it be changed for a short-term goal is not the prudent thing to do. Setting this scary precedent is not an answer to any problem.
 
Longeyes -

I'm well aware of FAIR... They do at least recognize that businesses are illegal labor dependent in the U.S. but they're not saying anything that hasn't already been said before.
 
El Tejon,

I am not anti-immigrant nor am I paranoid about "newcomers." My grandparents, all four, were immigrants. Italians, by the way. I've lived in Los Angeles most of my life; Latinos are not exactly exotic to me, and I have generally liked them on a personal level.

The issues here are legality of immigration, assimilation, and sheer numbers. Were it up to me I would be pushing for change and development south of the border, including more U.S. investment and perhaps bi-lateral migration. A big part of this problem is runaway public service costs and the philosophy of paternalistic government that propels that.

You and others have said that Americans need to do some soul-searching. With that I heartily concur. What is happening is happening with the tacit consent or indifference of way too many Americans.
 
Automatic Citizenship for newborns

Is an incentive to come here by whatever means. Eliminate that and replace with something sensible. Attack employers hiring illegals and we are all set.
Longeyes:
Every wave of immigrants has assimilated in 2-3 generations. My grand parents came from sicily. None of my cousins speak italian. We dont even celebrate st josephs any more.
 
Basura,

Okay, you're aware of FAIR. Good. But whether what they are saying has been said before isn't the point. You asked for a source. FAIR is one. They are one source with data. There are many others. Go to Vdare.com if you want an even more militant anti-illegal perspective to joust with.

If the current situation, with its built-in momentums, doesn't change, we are going to be facing not only fiscal crisis pretty soon but a lot of potentially avoidable ethnic turmoil, the size and direction of which is hard to predict. Bush's "guest worker" program is a smokescreen, and it is fooling no one. Bush himself gives away the game when he plainly evinces empathy not with the American taxpayers who keep him in office but with aspiring Mexican nationals and bloviates about "family values," which are not his concern as chief executive, not stopping at the border. On a gut level that sends up warning flares. If Bush were not intoxicated by the whiff of something not yet named he too would realize that Americans want him to put the U.S. first--and not just in Iraq.
 
Game: Spot the FAIR director minoritys

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Nancy S. Anthony, Chairman
Sharon Barnes
Henry M. Buhl
Major General Douglas E. Caton
Donald A. Collins
Sarah G. Epstein
Peter Gadiel
Stephen B. Swensrud
John Tanton, M.D.
Alan Weeden
John Rohe

Sidney Swensrud (1900 - 1996) Chairman,
Reserve and Endowment Fund

Brief biographies of Board members are available here:
Board Bios

NATIONAL BOARD OF ADVISORS
Hon. Richard Lamm, Chairman
Duke Austin
Hon. Anthony Beilenson
Gwat Bhattacharjie
Gerda Bikales
Hon. Brian Bilbray
Dorothy R. Blair
Edith Blodgett

John Brock
Frances Burke, Ph.D.
Cleveland Chandler, Ph.D.
William W. Chip, Esq.
Pat Choate
William Collard, Esq.
Clifford Colwell, M.D.

Dino Drudi
Bonnie Erbe

Don Feder

Robert Gillespie
Otis Graham
Lawrence E. Harrison
Edward H. Harte
Bonnie Hawley
Hon. Walter D. Huddleston
Diana Hull, Ph.D.


Hon. Fred C. Ikle

Glenn Jackson

Mrs. T. N. Jordan
Carol Joyal
Alan Kuper, Ph.D.
Yeh Ling Ling <-------There he is!
Henry Luce III
Donald Mann
Henry Mayer, M.D.
Hon. Eugene McCarthy
Joel McCleary
Scott McConnell
James G. McDonald, Esq.
Helen Milliken
Peter Nuñez
Robert D. Park
Fred Pinkham, Ed.D.
Thor Ramsing
Bruce S. Reid
Teela Roche
Charles T. Roth
Monica Bell Steensma
Joyce Tarnow
Max Thelen, Jr.
Hon. Curtin Winsor, Jr.
 
Abre los Ojos means open your eyes

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cis.php

“Let’s be clear,†wrote Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum, “CIS was birthed by FAIR, the militant anti-immigration group. The CIS executive director moved from FAIR to CIS to head up the organization. Although now independent, the two organizations share the same basic agenda: an American version of what in Europe is called ‘zero immigration.’†According to Sharry, CIS masquerades as an objective, “squeaky clean†think tank, but CIS is “simply churning out high-sounding, low-credibility grist for the high-pitch, low-road anti-immigration forces in the United States.†This assessment of CIS is widely shared among pro-immigrant groups, but CIS studies are not only frequently cited by the “low-road†nativist forces but also by major news media. (4)

CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,†it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.†A follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Borderline Republicans†described the anti-immigration network this way: “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA—and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.†(5) Replying to this charge, Krikorian wrote in National Review Online that CIS does not take a “position on anythin that does not involve U.S. immigration policy.†(6)
 
Lets talk about John Tanton

http://jgrr.blogspot.com/2004/10/john-tanton.html

When the indigenous birth rate fell below replacement level in the United States, his preoccupation turned to immigration. And this soon led him to race.

Tanton had something akin to a conversion when he came across The Camp of the Saints, a lurid, racist novel written by Frenchman Jean Raspail that depicts an invasion of the white, Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees.

Tanton helped get the novel published in English and soon was promoting what he considered the book's prophetic argument.

“Their [Third World] 'huddled masses' cast longing eyes on the apparent riches of the industrial west,†Tanton wrote in 1975. “The developed countries lie directly in the path of a great storm.â€

As his fear of an invasion of dark people, he began organizing. First he established the Federation for American Immigration reform. In his life, he has established at least thirteen anti-immigration groups, and inflates their membership to give the appearance of a groundswell of support.

Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund — an outfit once described by eugenics expert Barry Mehler as a “neo-Nazi organization, tied to the Nazi eugenics program in the 1930s, that has never wavered in its commitment to eugenics and ideas of human and racial inferiority and superiority.â€
When the Pioneer link was disclosed in 1988, Tanton, who was then president of FAIR's board, said he knew nothing of Pioneer's unsavory history. Yet his group continued to accept Pioneer grants for another six years, until 1994.
 
The High Cost of Illegal Immigration
Illegals Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MND NEWSWIRE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) — A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

The study, entitled The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, is online here. Among the findings:

* Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

* Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

* If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

* With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

* Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

* The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

* Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

* Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

* However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

* About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

* Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

Why Legalization Is So Costly. Costs rise unavoidably because amnesty will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American economy offers such workers very limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs. We know that cost would rise dramatically because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though we estimate that average tax payments would rise by 77 percent, we also find that costs would rise 117 percent. To understand why this happens it is helpful to consider a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals currently account for only 1.5 percent of the program’s total costs, but if they were legalized their use of the program would grow tenfold because with legal status they would no longer need stolen or bogus Social Security numbers to get the credit. This dramatic rise in cost is not due to laziness on the part of immigrants. In fact, only those who work receive the EITC. The dramatic rise in costs simply reflects the low educational attainment of illegals and their resulting low incomes.

If Illegals Stay, So Will the Costs. To the extent that policy makers have considered the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, they have generally tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain. But this strategy has not been effective because the average illegal already receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households. Moreover, many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded American citizenship at birth under current law. Other programs are simply too politically sensitive to cut, such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. And others costs are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes. Conversely, enforcing immigration laws is both popular with voters and administratively more feasible. There are really only two options: either we begin to enforce the law, significantly reducing the number of illegals in the country, or we accept the costs created by the presence of a large pool of unskilled workers.

Results Similar to Other Studies. A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income is the primary determinant of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State are almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our findings of 45 percent.
 
Basura,

Okay, you're aware of FAIR. Good. But whether what they are saying has been said before isn't the point. You asked for a source. FAIR is one. They are one source with data. There are many others. Go to Vdare.com if you want an even more militant anti-illegal perspective to joust with.

On another forum, on a similar topic in a galaxy far, far away... I cited a study by FAIR that refuted the idea that legal Mexican residents voted for candidates that made statements promising just about anything intended to capture the "Hispanic" vote, including licenses for so-called "illegals" and other such trivial issues. I even noted that it was interesting considering the source. I'm well aware of the organization but I can't find any data on "$7000 per student" and how the "landed class" is picking up the tab for those that rent, etc.

Can you point me specifically to this stuff?
 
Every wave of immigrants has assimilated in 2-3 generations. My grand parents came from sicily.

The idea that everone who opposes unfettered immigration and flouted legality is a rightwing extremist of some stripe is, well, not only foolish but counterproductive. See what Victor Davis Hanson has to say about the distinction between a multiracial and a multicultural America.

Making reference to assimilation policies of yesteryear isn't germane: times have changed and especially in the case of Mexico assimilation is on shaky grounds. Previous generations of Mexican immigrants assimilated, yes, but those Mexican-Americans widely oppose illegal immigration today. This is not about assimilation any more; it is about moving the southern border north, about moving Mexico, intact, to the the geographic U.S.A.

By the way, two of my grandparents were born in Sicily. I myself taught English in Sicily and I speak Italian. That said I am not ready to exchange my citizenship.
 
Basura:

You can find the budget for the L.A. County Board of Education--it's several billion dollars. You'll also find the number of students in the system and probably the ethnic background as well. Do the math. These numbers have been cited so often, and no matter how you slice it the number is around what I'm telling you. I'm sure you have some idea what it costs to educate a typical public school attendee these days. In D.C. I hear it's over $11K each.
 
Calling Dr. john

Eugenics anyone? I dont put much stock in what the so called immigration reform movement says John Tanton is a racist!

Between 1985 and 1994, FAIR accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund — an outfit once described by eugenics expert Barry Mehler as a “neo-Nazi organization, tied to the Nazi eugenics program in the 1930s, that has never wavered in its commitment to eugenics and ideas of human and racial inferiority and superiority.â€


In Mexico, white conquistadors interbred with Indian women to produce mestizos. Let's assume that in 1519 the Spaniards and the Mexican Indians were equal in IQ and other significantly heritable traits that aid economic success. I'll follow Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies) in stipulating that the conquistadors won solely because by luck they had the guns, germs, and steel on their side, and that the only reason they had superior technology was because Spain was less isolated than Mexico.

Now, imagine a conquistador and his Indian woman have two sons in the 1520s. These two mestizo brothers grow up and go out in the world to seek their fortunes. One is smarter, and he strikes it rich. The other wasn't so lucky in the genetic lottery, and he becomes poor. The rich son has a wide variety of potential wives to choose from. Like most men, and like almost all Mexican men, he is more attracted to blonde women, and thus marries one. (If you aren't familiar with the depths of Mexico's blonde obsession, try watching Spanish-language TV shows. Almost all the women on Mexican TV look like Finns.) His impoverished brother, in contrast, cannot attract a blonde wife. So he marries an Indian girl.

Then, the brothers have children. On average, the smarter, richer brother's kids, who are 3/4 white, are smarter than their underprivileged 1/4 white cousins. They're smarter not because they are whiter, but because their father had more smartness genes than their uncle. This trend continues: in both families, the smartest, most energetic, and most ruthless sons marry the blondest wives, while the blondest daughters marry the husbands with the most Right Stuff. Repeat for another dozen and a half generations. By 2000, this pattern could lead to the most European-looking people being the most naturally formidable, even if they weren't when they arrived in 1519.

Of course, talented youths are still born among the mestizos, but the white elite discriminates against them. However, in Mexico every century or so, there is a massive upheaval like the Revolution of 1910. The white monopoly is fractured. Up through the cracks come the most able mestizos and Indians. They start dynasties that persist to this day … but their grandsons and great-grandsons are notably whiter they were, since the men of the family have been exploiting their social ascendancy to marry white women. (Of course, many rich Mexican men father second families with their lower-ranking mistresses. But these kids seldom get the breaks in life that the legitimate children do.)

The ruling class today is not restricted solely to the legitimate heirs of the current magnates, however. It continues to recruit smart young men from the lower orders. For example, President Ernesto Zedillo, who has a doctorate from Yale in economics, is from a quite poor background. Yet, he looks pure white (and acts that way, too -- his aides used to call him "El Nerd" behind his back). His mother was a medical student who dropped out for obscure reasons. There is some uncertainty about whether he really is the biological son of the humble Mexicali electrician who raised him, or of a Finance Ministry official.
 
Who tried to justify it? I just made the observation which was based on long time, personally related experiences from so-called "illegal aliens" that I know. - Basura Blanca

You have repeatedly excused the "supply" and blamed "the demand", seeming to ignore that it is illegal to come into the country without proper documentation. I think your demand side arguments are good, but an illegal alien who may be a close and valued, respected friend is still a criminal. The way to avoid having humanitarian responsibilities for people in need is to keep them out of the scope of the taxpayer's responsibilities. That would require closed borders and existing immigration process requirements.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California deserve to be heavily subsidized by the Feds, because the Feds are not controlling the country's borders. That money could just as easily be spent on increased border control.

Bush's idea about amnesty can't fly without an accompanying program to stop the flow. The other thing I would propose, working on your demand side concern, is to require banks to demand proof of citizenship or legal immigration before wiring money out of the country. Any other transaction would require documenting the person sending the money. All alien transactions should be reported to immigration authorities, who can then analyze patterns and locate undocumented immigrants. If this is justification for a national ID card, so be it, but let's talk about how that information can be abused and how to prevent that abuse.
 
We should oppose racism wherever we see it. Let's face it, racism has been a primary engine in world history. It is exactly because I oppose racism and tribalism that I am concerned about cultural issues and preserving the primacy of the individual and of civil liberties. To do that we need to understand the philosophical and historical bulwarks of those principles.

I don't really want to get into the conquistadors but in general, in discussing technology in history, of which guns play a significant role, I think we can assume that it is anything but "luck" that produces societies with superior technology. The 19th century gun industry in America has been described as "the Silicon Valley" of the era. What made it possible didn't spring from nowhere; where exactly it sprang from should be a source of considerable curiosity for all of us, especially on this forum. So too the wellspring of our beliefs in individual liberty.
 
There are millions of illegal aliens

There are not millioins of business using them. Go after the businesses it is more cost effective and the fines are not a slap on the wrist. RIght now all you need to hire a illegal is paperwork. Fake SS# and drivers license or state id. Companies hire people they know are illegal. No matter what paperwork is presented to them. Make the companies verify the paperwork, that will stop many from hiring illegals. Then raid companies hiring illegals hold the owners responsible. Not just round up the illegals. Go after the owners. No jobs the illegals will go back home. It is that simple.

The above article longeyes was written by a board member of FAIR. Who is also part of the pioneer fund. Im just pointing out the eugenics aspect of what some in the immigration reform movement really espouse. They are just racists. If illegal immigration was stopped they would move to the "National Culture" movement.
 
You have repeatedly excused the "supply" and blamed "the demand", seeming to ignore that it is illegal to come into the country without proper documentation.

Hardly. I haven't excused anything. I only find it amazing that when the subject of immigration comes up, the volume of comments is usually centered around keeping so-called "illegals" locked out of the country and hardly a mention of why they come here (for the employment encouragements) in the first place. Don't read more into it than that.


Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California deserve to be heavily subsidized by the Feds, because the Feds are not controlling the country's borders. That money could just as easily be spent on increased border control.

I agree for reasons other than this topic in specific. Look at the numbers and tell me what's not fair about the big picture.

Federal taxes-

California paid $234 billion to the feds. in 2003. Yet federal spending on California was only around $180 billion back. That's $50 billion of tax money that is spent elsewhere than California - no doubt, we are a "Communist" state as we supply the rest of the nation from our "communal farm".

Texas almost breaks even.

Arizona is in the black (i.e. they get more than they spend)

New Mexico is at the top of the list for receiving the most federal money, yet paying the least federal taxes.

Here's the source for the info.


Bush's idea about amnesty can't fly without an accompanying program to stop the flow. The other thing I would propose, working on your demand side concern, is to require banks to demand proof of citizenship or legal immigration before wiring money out of the country. Any other transaction would require documenting the person sending the money. All alien transactions should be reported to immigration authorities, who can then analyze patterns and locate undocumented immigrants. If this is justification for a national ID card, so be it, but let's talk about how that information can be abused and how to prevent that abuse.


Your welcome to your opinion of course, but I think what you're suggesting is skating on dangerous ice constitutionally. I value my 4th amendment rights as much as the others we are all guaranteed by the BoR and the Constitution in general. Careful what you wish for...
 
vdare.com another white supremacist immigration reform movement

http://www.isteve.com/index.htm
Who is Steve Sailer? I'm a reporter, movie critic for The American Conservative, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute, which runs the invitation-only Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.
 
You can find the budget for the L.A. County Board of Education--it's several billion dollars. You'll also find the number of students in the system and probably the ethnic background as well. Do the math. These numbers have been cited so often, and no matter how you slice it the number is around what I'm telling you. I'm sure you have some idea what it costs to educate a typical public school attendee these days. In D.C. I hear it's over $11K each.

My wife is a veteran bilingual educator here in San Diego and vice president of the local union. I have a slight idea what the costs to education entail, especially here in California. ;)

I'll take your word for it on the $7k stuff. But...

I do though, flat out disagree that only the "landed class" tow the mark when it comes to paying for the cost of public schools. That is a myth of epic proportion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top