4 ms·
The "hate group" label from the SPLC has been reduced to a label used for any right wing or socially conservative organization. Ben Carson and the Family Resear
by rjeli 10y ago
The "hate group" label from the SPLC has been reduced to a label used for any right wing or socially conservative organization. Ben Carson and the Family Research Council have both been labeled as hate groups, when neither have promoted hatred in an organized manner.
Here is a paper published by the Congressional Budget Office:
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-...
It is a meta-analysis of this type of study, and although they do not draw a conclusion, the numbers reported are in line with the FAIR article.
Finally, I am still frustrated by the implication of your final remark. I am proud of the American immigrant heritage, and am in full support of legal immigration. Not only that, but this is exactly the type of accusation that started the debate in the parent - you are convinced that I am racist against foreigners, that I will be ashamed if you bring up my foreign ancestry, when this could not be further from the truth, and only serves to simplify my position so that it can be dismissed more easily.
Good day, sir.
- atomi 10y agoNo where does it say illegal immigrants are a $1000+ per household burden. And none of the studies are even remotely in line with your original source. The CBO report shows that in most studies illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than what they receive in benefits. Other studies show that to be slightly less with some variance. However many of those studies make arbitrary assumptions on tax compliance and may not account for related economic activity. Your wanton misrepresentation of facts makes for a very poor case against your prejudice and for your claim of benevolence towards immigrants.
- Chris2048 10y agoThe burden is on you to prove prejudice or benevolence. As it would require more than a little insight into motivation, I can't see how you could meet the burden. I also think the (unwarranted) is targeted enough to break HN rules.
- atomi 10y agoI never made either claim. I do, however, question the motivation of others when they make egregiously false claims. It's a natural response for those who think for themselves.
- Chris2048 10y agoOpenly questioning something slanderous you have no interest in backing up? What does "for those who think for themselves" mean?
- atomi 10y agoSlander is a legal definition and I'd advise you to use it carefully.
- Chris2048 10y agoNo it isn't, it's a word. It exists outside the law.
- atomi 10y agoFind something better to do with your time.
- Chris2048 10y agoIronic statement. You aren't even contributing to this thread, and now, having run out of anything to say, resort to passive-aggression.
- atomi 10y agoFor the love of Christ, Chris2048. I've spoken to rjeli outside of HN where he admitted his post was 'BS.' We both decided we'd rather not waste our time on frivolous argument on largely arbitrary metrics. Why you decided to interject is completely beyond me. You weren't part of the original discussion and you've consistently failed to produce a relevant polemic. You're just sullying comment threads. Knock it off.