Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Illegal immigrant students are entitled to nothing

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 6:52 am, Mon Sep 12, 2011.

First, let me say that my reaction and response to the article on Sept. 1 is not about race or nationality, but it is about illegal residency in California and the United States. Legal immigration built this country, and I am all for everyone in pursuit of the American Dream. However, I strongly oppose those who are here illegally because they never pledge their true allegiance to our country, our ideals and our way of life. They are entitled to nothing.

The article states, "These students (meaning illegal students) are valedictorians, class presidents and all-star athletes. They are the future of California."

Really?

We have plenty of exceptional students who are U.S. citizens who are not only entitled to our support but, more appropriately, should be the leaders of our nation and state government accordingly. Isn't it enough that we have already supported these illegal children K-12?

Further, the article refers to the student as being "punished" if they are not granted scholarships because their parents brought them here illegally without their consent. Poor argument, they are simply not entitled. The parents should have applied for legal entry, been made to study our fight for independence and history, learned to speak, read and write our official national language (English), pass a citizenship exam, pledge themselves to the USA, and become a USA citizen and done so for their children as well.

These young adults are obligated to apply for and become U.S. citizens if they want our tax money to further their education. They should be held accountable for continuing the deceptions of their parents. If they are not willing to become citizens, they should be deported along with their illegal families. The choice is really theirs.

Our legislature should be ashamed that they want to divert even one penny, to support them further. They are after all illegal and should be treated accordingly.

Be vocal and do not re-elect those government officials who are more interested in illegal amnesty to support their next campaign than doing what is right to rebuild the U.S. economy.

Sandra Fischer

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

65 comments:

  • Robert Chapman posted at 10:33 am on Sun, Sep 18, 2011.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    "ANCHOR BABIES", BS,,,,,If the parents are in the United States ILLEGALLY, the child born in the US, most likely at the expense of American taxpayers, should be ILLEGAL also and entitled to absolutely ZERO unless the parents can pay for it themselves. ILLEGAL parents, along with their ILLEGAL children, should be deported and only gain re-entry in a LEGAL manner as perscribed by the US immigration laws. Want to immigrate to the US? Welcome, but do it LEGALLY and pay your own way.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 7:14 am on Sun, Sep 18, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Those 100+ House and Senate Democrats that voted to send our troops off to war thought it was a great idea, the leftist gave speech after speech on the floor of the House and Senate telling all that would listen how this was going to stop Iraq from killing innocent men, women and children, making the world safe once again.

    Fast forward a couple of years, the war is going badly and the same leftist are coming up for re-election, what do they do, they lie and tell anyone who will listen how that brilliant President Bush was able to trick them into voting for the war.

    Kerry is a gutless wonder who lied about is own experiences in Vietnam, made fun of the troops in Iraq, and when the battles in Iraq went sour, turned tail and ran. He was followed by that brilliant Senate Leader Harry Reid who told the entire nation that the "war is lost" but forgot to remind the voters he was also responsible for sending those brave American's there to die.

    Now you have the war in Afghanistan going badly, more Americans are being killed under Obama's leadership than under Bush, but the media seems to want the killings to just go away, what ever happened to the daily causality count when Bush was in office, where are the gory details of innocent Afghan children being killed by Drone attacks??? Where is the outrage from the progressives who wanted Bush indited for war crimes, is Obama being given a pass because the Nobel committee gave him that "Peace Prize" after only a few weeks in office??? He's now overseeing wars in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and that little secret CIA action in Yemen.

    Guess when Democrats are responsible for killing innocent children in foreign lands "Code Pink" and their leftist sheep have no problem looking the other way. War crimes anyone???

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:24 pm on Sat, Sep 17, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...What can I say the Bush administration made it so easy

    I agree... when honest good people ( Bush Administration) do the right thing, vultures
    I mean democrats will do their best to swoop down and do harm for their selfish greedy political gain... just like a good democrat.
    Bush Administration made it easy for the dems...no doubt.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 6:03 pm on Sat, Sep 17, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    What can I say the Bush administration made it so easy

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:14 pm on Fri, Sep 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric... the dems would have looked as bad as they normally do had they not cooperated immediately after 9/11

    The rest of the time was spent attempting to make the Bush administration out to be murderers, crooks, liars, and scum. You have a very very very short selective memory.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:00 pm on Fri, Sep 16, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    President Bush praised the House of Representatives for voting to give him authority to go to war to disarm Iraq Thursday, calling it "a debate and a result that all Americans can be proud of."

    The House voted 296-133 to give Bush the authority to use U.S. military force to make Iraq comply with U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction. Across the Capitol, a companion measure cleared a procedural vote by a wide margin earlier Thursday and drew the support of the chamber's Democratic leader.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-10/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-resolutions-iraqi-president-saddam-hussein?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:38 am on Fri, Sep 16, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...Ah 2002 the good ol days when the party without control of the white house were willing to work with the president for the good of the country.


    Eric accidentally used a couple of wrong words... let me help out.

    Ah 2002 the good ol days when the party without control ( ther democrats) of the white house were willing to destroy the president for the good of the democrats in our country.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 9:12 am on Fri, Sep 16, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Ah 2002 the good ol days when the party without control of the white house were willing to work with the president for the good of the country.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 9:07 am on Fri, Sep 16, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    it's not hard to understand Kerry's change of mind he voted to give Bush authority to act and Bush bungled it so badly he then decided to reverse that decision. I'm sure many other Senators felt the same way but since they weren't running for president it didn't come up. I'm glad you recall the flip flop chant it was repeated by every conservative lap dog around similar today to the way Rush the pill poppin huckster Limbaugh is parroted by conservatives on a daily basis.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:18 pm on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2839

    Eric,

    As a result of Kerry and his most memorable flip-flop " I voted for the war in Iraq BEFORE I voted against it" did the Republicans begin to coin the term. Had Kerry not so blatantly flip-flopped every chance he got, Conservatives may not have made such an issue of it. Of course politicians will always change their position on issues. But you would never recognize OR admit the left are the authors of changing their position even if a Conservative position is cleary the best position.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:22 pm on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...Darrell why when frustrated do you always revert name calling since this conversation has devolved to that level I will leave it with one last question

    Good example of showing your confused interpretation for what I write.

    01. I am not frustrated at all. I enthusiastically stated that you sounded moronic since that described your choice of words in describing that Gary hates anything. There was nothing to be frustrated about. I am simply helping you to see the folly of your thinking. That goes into the category of being a good semeritan. You labeled Gary as a hater. You were calling him the name. A more reasonable explanation of his desire to leave his home follows my explanation.
    02. Saying you sound moronic is not calling you a name at all. It is a description of your attitude. I would never call you a moron as that would be calling you a name. I personally think you are intelligent and good at heart... but severely misguided.
    03. You need not say sorry for asking more than one question. When you ask questions, I provide answers. You on the other hand ignore most questions posed to you.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:11 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Darrell why when frustrated do you always revert name calling since this conversation has devolved to that level I will leave it with one last question. Really? California is like a house where a loved one died? This is what you assume Gary feels for California and you think I sounded moronic? Is this just more of your creating a world with your words for the benefit of others? Sorry that was more than one question.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:17 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    http://jan.ocregister.com/2010/09/23/leaving-cal-list-grows-to-144-firms/45696/

    In addition, he lists 51 companies (8 from Orange County) that left in 2009. That three-fold increase, Vranich says, is the tip of the iceberg that is California’s financial woes.

    “Quite clearly, the exodus of businesses out of California continues. It makes sense for companies to reduce their California footprint considering the ample supply of attractive, lower-cost alternative locations. Unless California reduces its hostility toward business, we will see more commercial enterprises seeking friendlier locations in which to relocate entirely or at least place facilities there that used to be located here.”

    Among the Orange County companies new to his list are Boeing, Kennametal Inc., Latex International, Multi-Fineline Elextronix Inc., NGK Spark Plug Co., Smith Micro Software Inc. and Witt Heat Transfer Products Group, most of which have been previously reported by the Register. Vranich says Orange County may be over-represented on his list because news reports are one source of his information and the Register reports business comings and goings more than some publications.

    Vranich doesn’t include in his list every company that opens a facility elsewhere. Here’s how he explains:

    “I’ve excluded countless companies that are attempting to serve new territories or new customers, are expanding because the company is growing, or are acquiring companies located elsewhere. When events appear unrelated to California’s hostile business environment, I give the companies the benefit of the doubt and leave them off the list.

    Which locations are benefiting from California’s exodus? Vranich says in a Fox&Hounds article:
    Texas
    Arizona
    Colorado
    Nevada
    Virginia
    Utah
    Other countries

    “Businesses are shrinking their California footprint because high taxes and intense regulation damage their ability to compete,” Vranich says.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:12 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric Barrow posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011...Gary I know you love to hate California

    Eric sounds moronic. You do not know anything of the sort. A reasonable person would assume that Gary is saddened by the turn of events in California and with regret, wants to leave California. It would be similar to a person whose spouse dies, and sells the house he loves to avoid the pain of living in that house that reminds him everyday of what was lost.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:05 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric Barrow posted at 7:03 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011...Darrell if you will read your own post @ 2:48 pm you will see that you were not evolving the topic...

    Exactly Eric... that is the correct post... please notice that I was responding to something you stated... which was..." Eric stated...The children of illegals are operating within California laws and are completely within their rights to receive scholarships and an education" You were making a point that they have rights to an education and/ or tax payers dollars. I then for arguments sake (said good point Eric) and elevated the issue to how much (Dream Act) award was in question.
    . I then stated..."I thought the argument was in determining if that student should get in state or out of state tuition and have their grants and scholarships based on that criteria. ... I was not referring to the thread or previous posts... I was talking about your post . Since your post was about the law... scholarships... education, it brought to mind the argument that supporters of the Dream Act made. Your point that it is off topic is completely wrong. Having a conversation with you is an exercise of futility.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 9:45 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Brian I'm surprised you would bring up flip-flop, wasn't that the conservative mantra that helped bring down Kerry in 04 the right practically invented it but now you want to excuse the current candidates. Until the right coined the phrase in 04 a politician reconsidering their stance on an issue after issues evolved or more information became available was normal.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:48 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Gary I know you love to hate California but here is a little more info,from the Orange County Register, on our great state
    California has its problems, but it is still an economic powerhouse that led the nation last year in state gross domestic product — by far, reported the Bureau of Economic Analysis Tuesday. The Golden State accounted for 13.1% of all the goods and services produced in the country last year, down from 13.2% in 2009 and 13.4% in 2007 and 2008. Texas was a distant second with 8.3% of the U.S. GDP. Also you seem well informed so I’m sure you are aware that Texas leads the nation in low paying jobs, no wonder Perry like all those illegals.
    Also from the Washington Post. Over the last few years, government jobs have been awfully consequential in Texas: 47% of all government jobs added in the US between 2007 and 2010 were added in Texas. Texas employment wasn’t down much at all in these years, as the state lost only 53,000 jobs. But looming behind that number are large losses in the private sector (down 178,000) and large gains (up 125,000) in government jobs.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:46 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2839

    One example comes to mind is the fact Obama has ordered our troops to work side-by-side with elements of Al-Qaeda in Libya. Heven't heard a peep from her about this.
    But if it was a Republican President. Now, the S#$t would hit the fan.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 8:33 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2839

    Joanne wrote:

    Seems there is an even bigger problem looming on the horizon. The leading contender for the Republican nomination is in favor of these types of laws and desperately tried to defend the Texas law that he signed that allows the children of illegals to get in-state tuition. He is also anti-border fence.

    -It seems to me Joanne has an axe to grind with every Republican politician who does the occasional Flip-Flop but rarely, if at all, has an axe to grind with EVEN one Democrat politician who does the MORE than occasional Flip-Flop.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 7:49 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Ms. Bobin, thank you for taking the time figuring out who you will not vote for, you should be worrying how to prop up your parties figure head, he's sinking like a rock.
    His own flock of corrupt legislators want to look over his new and improved "jobs bill" maybe this time they want to find out what's in it before they vote on it, probably read the "tea" leaves after the beating they took Tuesday.

    By the way, have you or any of your leftist cohorts found that missing $500+ million dollars worth of taxpayers money Obama lost in his failed "green job" experiment?

    Here's a hint, it's not hiding in any trash bins close to the Palin compound so you can tell them to search elsewhere.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 7:30 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    California has 17% of the nations population but is saddled by liberals with over 35% of the nations welfare recipients.

    Unemployment rate for the Democrat controlled California is over 12.2%, not counting those underemployed, third highest in the US.

    Democrats have California wallowing in over 500 billion in unfunded pensions, the state is billions in debt, even the unemployment insurance fund is over 10 billion in in the hole.

    LAO states that the left leaning state of California unemployment rate is set to remain fairly high for the next several years.

    Democrats in California have help lose over 1.5 million jobs last year while Texas has created over 170,000. Liberal Lt. Gov. Newsom sent a group of legislators to Texas to find out how they went about creating jobs.

    Liberals have sunk this once great state but Leftist like Eric and his ilk could help save California by just giving more in taxes, you know, spreading the wealth around.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:03 am on Thu, Sep 15, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Darrell if you will read your own post @ 2:48 pm you will see that you were not evolving the topic instead you state that you "thought the argument was in determining if that student should get in state or out of state tuition and have their grants and scholarships based on that criteria. " I will state again that was not the argument. Nothing wrong with being consistent, unless you are consistently dodging the debate when it does not go in your favor. whack-a-mole

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:48 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...That was obviously not the argument on this thread...

    Of course Eric... that was very good of you to catch that it “was” not the topic... but that is the nature of evolution of discussion... one thing leads to the next. Since we were talking about scholarships and educational opportunities for children of illegal parents, the Dream Act which the left has been promoting so that these children can be considered in state in order to get this funding and discount in tuition was very related to the conversation.
    Your response was very predictable. Instead of making constructive comments and expressing view points on what the left considers a major victory for children of illegal parents, you simply give yourself an excuse to ignore what you have no credible response to... You are consistent.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:44 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Yes Darrell I understand how residency works it's just that you wrote "I thought the argument was in determining if that student should get in state or out of state tuition and have their grants and scholarships based on that criteria." That was obviously not the argument on this thread.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:32 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Seems there is an even bigger problem looming on the horizon. The leading contender for the Republican nomination is in favor of these types of laws and desperately tried to defend the Texas law that he signed that allows the children of illegals to get in-state tuition. He is also anti-border fence.

    Since that precludes any Republican or right-leaning person in this forum from voting for him (I see "amnesty" being put on the table by a Perry administration), what are the choices now?

    Mitt Romney? Can't stick to a single position for more than 5 minutes. Romneycare.

    Michelle Bachman? Claims the HPV vaccination causes mental retardation and that gays can be "cured" by prayer. Not to mention, has not outlined one economic
    policy and concentrates on wanting to legislate social issues.

    Ron Paul? Yes, Mr. Baumbach - I know he's your Libertarian hero, but mixes the kookiness with the good ideas (bringing home our troops).

    Newt Gingrich? Too much personal baggage (infidelity and big personal spending habits while telling the rest of the country they have to tighten their belts).

    John Huntsman....hmmmmm. Rational thinker, but has the "Obama Connection."

    Won't even mention the rest of the field, declared or undeclared.

    Dying to find out how this one will go down!

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:59 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Darrell I don't think the letter mentioned anything about residency and in the 37 post so far you are the first to mention residency...having a discusion with you is like playing wack-a-mole

    Eric... sorry to skip a step... I assumed you would comprehend the obvious. Let me take a step back so you can catch up.

    Most blogs evolve in thought and content to include related issues. These posts were talking about rights to be educated and tax payer funding to attend schools in California. The bill, AB131, known as the Dream Act, allows students who have graduated from high school after attending at least three years in California to apply for the Cal Grant program that pays for tuition, fees, books and living expenses for lower-income students. Undocumented college students in California would be eligible to receive publicly funded financial aid under this controversial bill .

    The bill, which passed on a party-line vote of 45-27 with Democrats in favor, is the second piece of a package that includes a bill already signed into law by Brown to make undocumented students eligible for privately funded scholarships administered by the state's colleges and universities. These students are eligible for “IN STATE TUITION” and students from other states are not. Therefore, the status of the parents is very much an issue and important to the discussion to the overall topic.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:34 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Gary.. if we include independets and democrats then the population of California would return to about 1980s level. I'll bet we can struggle by without the repubs. I hear theres room in Utah

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:02 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Darrell I don't think the letter mentioned anything about residency and in the 37 post so far you are the first to mention residency, having a discusion with you is like playing wack-a-mole

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:48 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...The children of illegals are operating within California laws and are completely within their rights to receive scholarships and an education

    Good point Eric. However, I thought the argument was in determining if that student should get in state or out of state tuition and have their grants and scholarships based on that criteria.
    In state tuition is based on the assumption that the parents of the student has lived and paid taxes in that state so is entitled to a reduced tuition basis for the universities. Therefore, the status of the parent is paramount to the financial award. I think the parent's status is vital in making a fair policy for the student who wants a reduced instate tuition.

    In addition. I think we are providing an economic incentive for parents to enter our country illegally . If I lived in Russia and knew I could get all sorts of financial benefits for my kids by going to California illegally, it would be worth the risk as there would be little negative consequence for my children.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:34 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...I don't recall defining hate.
    Just as a cmpany who does not have a written company policy for it's employees, ends up with a legal unwritten policy based on the actions and behavior the company takes by default, you define hate by the many times you use the word in your posts Personally, I think your use of the word hate has little meaning as you use it inappropriately from my perspective. That is why I said : hate" by your definition, not mine.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:33 pm on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Kevin I agree with most of what you said. My point was that many on this site state that it doesn't matter who the illegals are, they are here illegally and should not get any aid. I don't completely agree but fair enough. Now though people are complaining that the kids of illegals should not get scholarships. The children of illegals are operating within California laws and are completely within their rights to receive scholarships and an education. It seems to me that a person can't claim the law is the law not matter the circumstance and then be upset when people are following the law to better themselves. Besides a number of the studies I looked at claim that educating the children of illegals and granting citizenship is a net gain for the economy.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 11:42 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2027

    Eric stated: "Isn't that what many have been repeating that illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported? That it doesn't matter if they are good hardworking people, they are illegal that's all that matters?"

    Eric: How many illegal activities do you feel this criteria applies to? If someone is hardworking and drive drunk, should they be excused? Should hard working execs who bilk stock holders out of their money be excused? If a bus driver is caught with drugs should they be excused since they work so hard? What illegal activities should get passes because the violator works hard?

    I would love for the US to be in a position to help all those that need help. But the fact remains that if we continue to help everyone then the country WILL fail and then no one will get help. US Government aid needs to be more triage than mad scramble. Criteria needs to be established as to who gets help first and then if there is something left who do we help next. Not the current help everyone and wonder where the money is going to come from.

    This is for government only. Churches and other private organizations are free and fully encouraged to help as many as they see fit and in fact would be better suited to help those in need since they are not as wasteful as the Fed Government.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:03 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Darrell.. you misunderstand I think Lodi (east and west side) and California are great and I believe I have spoken up for Lodi many times before. There are lots of things i don't like but Lodi is not one of them. I'm wondering what you mean by "often express "hate" here ( as you define it, not me)". I don't recall defining hate.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 10:55 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Eric why are you so interested in getting people to leave this state, who will be left to pay for your parties free handouts?? Who will employ the poor, the down trodden, those that depend on tax payers to fund all their needs for them to survive??

    Maybe all of you loving and caring progressives could have a little extra tax taken out of your check to help those that are in such dire need, you know "do as I do, not as I say" sort of stuff.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:27 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...I would invite all of the Lodi/California haters to buck up and hit the road ..

    Eric... when are you leaving? You so often express "hate" here
    ( as you define it, not me) that I wonder if you will follow your own recommendation. Personally, I think it would be Lodi's loss if you left ... we need models like you to learn from.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Since when did fairness have anything to do with it? Is it fair that 14.7 million children live in poverty in this country, shameful yes fair no. It may not be fair but it is legal that the children of illegal immigrants can acquire scholarships and attend school. Isn't that what many have been repeating that illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported? That it doesn't matter if they are good hardworking people, they are illegal thats all that matters? Well these kids are legal deal with it.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:07 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    If I felt revulsion for a place equal to what Mr. Hallum feels I don't think I would wait until it was comfortable to leave. I would invite all of the Lodi/California haters to buck up and hit the road or maybe it's the fault of the liberals, immigrants, politicians, welfare recipients, etc. that force you to stay.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 8:20 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Where is the fairness of letting one group of people who choose to break our laws move ahead of those who waited years for the benefits of becoming an American citizens. Illegals can receive the same benefits for free without the hassle of following the law, this is the American way????

    Those illegal immigrants that have done well in schools is the reason they should be given a break over those poor, legal, hard working immigrants that have also done well in school??? Is that about right Ms. Bobin??

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 4:33 am on Wed, Sep 14, 2011.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2357

    Mr. Hallum made it rather clear as to why he can't leave California right now. There are many of us in that very same boat. It takes quite a bit of money to pick up and move. As an east coast transplant of many years, I often think it would be nice to place myself into the Borough of my young life in South Jersey. Of course such a move would be costly and I'm wise enough to realize that chasing such a dream usually results in deep disappointment - it isn't always healthy to attempt to "go back." So here I’ll stay much to the chagrin of a few contributors on this very forum.

     
  • Kim Lee posted at 11:05 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Kim Lee Posts: 1798

    Jesse Hallum: Why can't you leave California right now? Just remember that the grass is not always greener...

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:34 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated... I know that you have deep opposition to just about anything that anyone you dislike says...

    Sorry Ms Bobin... you are mistaken about me again. I respect and appreciate you as a person as you take your time and effort to communicate what you think and show a concern for humanity. I strongly disagree with many positions you take and cringe when you call people idiots and bigots without merit.
    I especially appreciate how you respect and support your husband affectionately. Lastly, I appreciate your ability to communicate and paint pictures in people's mind about what you want them to see.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 6:03 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Sorry, Mr. Baumbach. I know that you have deep opposition to just about anything that anyone you dislike says, I suggest that you just Google your favorite authority, Wikipedia. Type in "history of US immigration."

    The point is, that in lieu of science (according to your favorite site), is that it was decided that the best method of determining "whiteness," was appearance, because science would have provided way too many "brown-black" people who could have been considered white if science had prevailed.

    And from all of the comments that I made in my post, you seem to have an inordinant amount of issues with "whiteness." This just shows that your (white) skin prickles when anyone mentions race. As does the lovely town of Lodi, and its reluctance to admit that race matters here.

    As for the main point of Ms. Fischer's letter, even the most ignorant Republican candidate for president agrees that it is better to let the children of illegal immigrants get an education at discounted prices than to leave them to perpetuate poverty and ignorance.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:09 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Ms Bobin stated...Between 1790 and 1952 there were a reported 52 cases that were brought before various courts arguing whether one was “white.”

    So you conclude from this that all others had to prove "how white" they were. Ms Bobin, since you have a wonderful knowledge of history, can you please give me these 52 cases you referred to. I would love to read the results and what the consequences were. Do you have a link?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:59 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric... great information. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point or what I think. I can understand now why we cannot communicate.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 1:17 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Darrell .. You make it sound like it was a fair deal when in fact land owners received additional acreage, from the state, for every servant they brought over. The working conditions where quite harsh and many did not survive. You write as though they came over worked on the farm for 4 to 7 years and then lived out their years as farmers or the wives of farmers which just isn’t the case.

    “Only about 40 percent of indentured servants lived to complete the terms of their contracts. Female servants were often the subject of harassment from their masters. A woman who became pregnant while a servant often had years tacked on to the end of her service time. Early in the century, some servants were able to gain their own land as free men. But by 1660, much of the best land was claimed by the large land owners. The former servants were pushed westward, where the mountainous land was less arable and the threat from Indians constant. A class of angry, impoverished pioneer farmers began to emerge as the 1600s grew old. After BACON'S REBELLION in 1676, planters began to prefer permanent African slavery to the headright system that had previously enabled them to prosper.”
    http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp

    But all of this is OK because it was legal were allowing someone living in this country illegally, through no fault of their own, to reach for a better life is somehow wrong. Yet another proud moment in U.S. history

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:05 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Musto wrote: " their parents have been living off the tax payers for years."

    Explain your reasons for stating that, Mr. Musto.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:02 pm on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Since Mr. Baumbach has such wonderful knowledge of history (as proven by his ability to read Wikipedia entries), perhaps you could give us a more up-to-date history of immigration other than pre-United States of American immigration.

    Indentured servants? Really.

    And because Wikepedia seems to be your favorite reference, here's another quote:

    "Between 1790 and 1952 there were a reported 52 cases that were brought before various courts arguing whether one was “white.” These cases not only forced the courts to define what a “white persons” was, but also explain why someone was white."
    and
    "The court opted for common knowledge because “scientific manipulation” it believed had ignored racial differences by including under Caucasian “far more [people] than the unscientific mind suspects” even some persons the Court described as ranging “in color … from brown to black.”

    In case you don't understand that last part, it means that it was preferable to determine someone's race by looking at them than by DNA so more "brown" people could be EXCLUDED.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:48 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405


    Trista stated... Oh that's great~deport all the smart kids...the ones who Did 'learn our history, our fight for independence,' who did learn to speak and write English-the scholarship worthy ones..... Well I couldn't disagree more~ I ask you, what kind of message are you sending...

    Good point... If I am reading this correctly, This post is suggesting that if someone has something to offer society with brain power, skills and constructive positive attributes, then these people should be rewarded with support from the tax payer. I would have no problem with this as good people should be what we want to attract... some type of fast track legalization should be afforded when appropriate.
    But may I ask... what about the other ones? You paint a rosy picture as if all are this way.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:35 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric Barrow posted at 7:08 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011...Darrell only you could paint indentured servitude in such pleasant way. You truly do believe that the past was some romantic utopia. Take off those rose colored glasses and join reality.

    Eric... I'm a little slow today. Please clarify why you think I felt indentured servitude was pleasant in any way? Exactly what romantic utopia are you referring to that you feel I see the past in? How did you draw that conclusion? What reality should I be seeing that you perceive that I do not? Your observations are unique.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:27 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jeff Tillett posted at 9:34 pm on Mon, Sep 12, 2011...It does not, however, have anything to do with the status of a person's immigration as legal or illegal, merely the means by which they secured transport to the new world

    Jeff... I was responding to Ms Bobins assertion that others had to prove "how white" they were. I did not make any comment about the obvious since Federal Government in USA did not even have immigration authority until 1875 or so. So “OBVIOUSLY”, they were all just immigrants.
    Certainly, even you can see that many white people came here and had nothing to do with proving “how white” they were but simply had to be able to work for free. Why you assumed I was referring to legal or illegal immigration is bizarre.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 10:08 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Trista, who is going to pay for all these new college students, their parents have been living off the tax payers for years and now they are able to move to the front of the line and receive a top notch education for free???

    Either you obey the laws of the land or you don't. Nobody is asking for anyone to be deported but to be rewarded for being able to sidestep the law and live here while enjoying all the perks someone else provides, is one lesson your "smart" students should have learned a long time ago.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:08 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Very well said Trista

    Darrell only you could paint indentured servitude in such pleasant way. You truly do beleive that the past was some romantic utopia. Take off those rose colored glasses and join reality.

    Jesse the quicker the better and take some of youre caveman conservitive brothers with you. the sooner you learn that California is possibly the most progressive state in this country the better. I would add that California has been good enough to you if you can create enough wealth to buy a little patch of heaven in the bible belt, good riddance.

     
  • trista aquino posted at 2:03 am on Tue, Sep 13, 2011.

    trista aquino Posts: 113

    Oh thats great~deport all the smart kids...the ones who Did 'learn our history, our fight for independence,' who did learn to speak and write English-the scholorship worthy ones..... Well I couldnt disagree more~ I ask you, what kind of message are you sending? Show up to school on time, stay out of trouble, finish your homework and study hard so we can deport you to a place unfamiliar, where everyone speaks a language that is now secondary.
    With such encouraging rewards, I cant imagine any kid in thier right mind who would give all that up for the very profitable life of drug dealing or something similar in nature.
    By the way, I encourage everyone to please Google the term 'narco murders' in ypur browsers and educate yourselves on the world your so desperate to send them home to. Most of the people here illegally that your so quick to think of as criminals, are just regular people trying to survive like the rest of us. Working hard to provide their family w/ a better life in a better place then they themselves had. I think sending the innocent nack to a place where shootouts in front of schools occur regularly and the daily struggle is sorting through the piles of heads and limbs trying to peice people back together as have an accurate body count is a far greater crime.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:34 pm on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 548

    Darrell, thanks for that rousing, wikipediaish account of indentured servitude. It does not, however, have anything to do with the status of a person's immigration as legal or illegal, merely the means by which they secured transport to the new world. As she alluded, there used to be no classifications of immigration. They were all just immigrants.

     
  • Account Deleted posted at 8:02 pm on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Jesse Hallum Posts: 57

    Sandra: do you have any idea where you are? This is California! Are you serious about all of this? Your opinion (which mirrors my own) is but a drop in a vast sea of Liberalism!

    May I make a suggestion? Do as I am now planning to do: walk away, forever. The wife and I are saving to move to the Midwest ASAP. We plan to purchase a house and land far, far away from here, and retire.

    California is truly a lost cause. All the talk in the world will never, EVER change the course of this fetid state and the grip of liberalism that binds it together. Your only chance to retain your sanity is to walk away, now, while you can.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:52 pm on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    It has been less than 100 years since actual immigration policy was formulated in the country. Until then, anyone could jump off a boat and be considered a "legal" immigrant - except perhaps the Chinese. Others had to prove "how white" they were...

    Really Ms Bobin...Ms Bobin really needs to review her history... that idea that all one had to do was show how white they were is insulting and false... according to an online source ( correct me if I am wrong)
    During the seventeenth century, approximately 175,000 Englishmen migrated to Colonial America. Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants.
    Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture. They included men and women; most were under age 21, and most became helpers on farms (performing manuel labor) or house servants (performing domestic servitude). They were not paid; wages and cash were in too short supply for that. It was a system that provided jobs and—most important—transportation for poor young people from the overcrowded labor markets of Europe to labor-short America. The great majority became farmers and farm wives


     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:06 pm on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    When someone must preface their letter with "is not about race or nationality," you can believe it's really about race and nationality, otherwise she wouldn't be writing it. I'm sure Ms. Fischer wouldn't recognize a single Anglo, English-speaking illegal immigrant if she tripped over them.

    Ms. Fischer stated, "Legal immigration built this country,"

    It has been less than 100 years since actual immigration policy was formulated in the country. Until then, anyone could jump off a boat and be considered a "legal" immigrant - except perhaps the Chinese. Others had to prove "how white" they were.

    It is obvious that Ms. Fischer is talking out of her 6th grade ideals of what immigration in this country has been all about.

    Immigrants have only been welcomed here when the need arose for bodies to populate certain territories (in order to beat back the native inhabitants and/or to qualify a territory for statehood), to be treated as expendible human waste when dangerous work needed to be done, to provide cheap labor for the Industrial Revolution, and to fill factory jobs and field jobs in time of war while men were off fighting (and then, as a "thank you," they were kicked back over the border when they were no longer needed).

    And I won't even go into the violations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that drove Mexican citizens off their own properties in California and other western territories.

    If anyone should be "ashamed," it is Ms. Fischer for writing such an ignorant letter.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 2:02 pm on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric... so it's official then?

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 11:17 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1533

    Darrell thats great "unofficially our official language"

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 11:13 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Jonathan Shinn posted at 10:14 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011...Your argument is akin to saying that children whose parents have been incarcerated for felonies should have their rights to vote and participate in public society stripped. It's a ludicrous argument at best.

    Actually your analogy is so far off base that it is comical. Parents who are here legally, then commit a crime does not change the point that the children were here legally all along. In the authors letter, her point is that children she was referring to were never legal.
    If a family immigrated "LEGALLY"from Mexico to USA , and the parent soon after committed a crime and was incarcerated, his Mexican children would and should be eligible for tax payer benefits just as much as any other citizen.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:59 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    a.) The United States has no "official national language."


    . "As a nation" , America has not declared an official language... however, any nation's official language will normally be the one used in that nation's courts, parliament and administration... therefore English is currently, unofficially our official language. Spanish, in 30 years might become official just as English already is.

     
  • Jonathan Shinn posted at 10:14 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    JRS Posts: 9

    Sandra:

    a.) The United States has no "official national language."
    b.) Your argument is akin to saying that children whose parents have been incarcerated for felonies should have their rights to vote and participate in public society stripped. It's a ludicrous argument at best.

    Your argument is strategically weak - I hardly think that you want to see the results of millions of uneducated people growing up and becoming a further drag on society - isn't it better to turn out individuals who at least have a CHANCE at contributing to society?

     
  • Lori Cotten posted at 8:19 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    LKC Posts: 8

    Amen!

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 5:15 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Should have posted, "Assembly and Senate", not House and Senate.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 5:13 am on Mon, Sep 12, 2011.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    AB 353, a bill co-sponsored by Democrat Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles, would make it easier for "law abiding illegal immigrants" to obtain a driver license.

    The bill passed the Democrat controlled House and Senate and now sits on Gov. Brown's desk awaiting his signature.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 14 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Voters have a right to know can…

Local elections have been nonpartisan for a long time now, Mr Nachand, for the express purpose of getting the party machine out of local is…

More...

Posted 14 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: There is no common sense in pol…

And what's the story with so many big, bald (or cleanly shaved) cops in Lodi? Have we already transitioned to a police force composed at l…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: There is no common sense in pol…

Someone tell Adam that height requirements are long since in the past. I believe (but don't care to look it up) that female law enforcemen…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: There is no common sense in pol…

It sound like you have made the ideal use of the patra for the Halloween celebration party! I have the great respect for the monk of Buddh…

More...

Posted 15 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Voters have a right to know can…

When I gain my citizenship and become a voter I know that I will not be a lazy voter like the Mr Nachand indicate he is just to vote for th…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists