GeorgiaDon

When I've visited various UK cities, they seemed to me to be more ethnically diverse than any comparably sized American city I'm familiar with. Canadian cities too have become very diverse over the last couple of decades. There are lots of differences between US and European lifestyles that are more likely to account for the differences in health. Cities are less car-friendly, as the roads historically were laid out for horses, so it is more efficient to walk especially if you only have to go a few blocks. People still tend to buy food in small specialty shops (butchers, bakeries) where food is fresh, instead of prepackaged processed food from the mega-mall. People I know (in the UK and the Netherlands) will most often stop on the way home from work to pick up meat/vegies/bread, perhaps walk the remainder of the way home, and use the food right away for dinner while it is still fresh. This also discourages buying more food than you actually need. American (and Canadian) cities aren't laid out in a manner that faciltates that, instead we get in our cars and make a big shopping trip to the supermarket, buy lots of frozen/prepackaged food, then make megameals with 2-3X the amount of food that is really needed (or healthy) because that's what you have to work with. Also, although this is changing, I don't know too many Europeans who routinely work 10-16 hr workdays, but most Americans I know habitually work long hours, indeed we accept that if you don't do that you'll probably be replaced with someone who will. There is a price to be paid for spending that amount of time sitting on your butt staring at a computer monitor (for those with office jobs), or even standing around behind a counter (for those in retail). Plus, it's hard to invest an hour or more cooking a healthy meal when you don't get home from work until 8 or 10 PM, and if you do you end up eating really late and then going to bed with a full stomach, so you end up storing the calories instead of walking some of them off after the meal. Everybody dies eventually, so everybody (European or American) faces end-of-life medical costs. A while ago I heard an interview on NPR with an American cardiologist who has written a book comparing American and European end-of-life care. He was motivated by his experience of his mother's terminal illness, where he found he had to fight tooth and nail to enforce his mother's wishes (for pain management, but rejecting "heroic measures" to keep her alive). His situation was complicated by the fact that he was in Boston most of the time (working at Harvard medical school) and his mother was in California, so usually he was told about procedures after they had been done when it was too late to say "no". I think his point is worth considering: American culture, especially the prevailing medical culture, always views death as a defeat, and the automatic role of treating physicians is to prolong life irrespective of the "quality" of that life. Spending $40,000 to keep a 92-year old alive for two more weeks is a "victory", and it doesn't matter that the patient was in a coma and completely unaware of their continued existance during that time. When that 92-yr-old eventually dies, it is because medicine "failed". European popular and medical culture is more attentive to "quality of life" issues, and prolonging life by a few weeks (or perhaps months) is not the automatic default response if that means the patient has to be drugged into unconciousness in order to manage the pain, unless the patient insists on that sort of treatment. As a result (and I think this is the big difference) most Europeans die at home, in their own bed, surrounded by family and friends, and most Americans die in a hostital bed, almost invisible under a mass of tubes and oxygen masks, surrounded by strangers and, if they are very fortunate, one or two family. That, and European (and Canadian) doctors can make decisions about tests and procedures to order based on medical critia, not on "defensive medicine" driven by the need to protect themselves from ambulance-chasing lawyers. Thank you John Edwards et al! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If they're smoking weed the way smokers smoke cigarettes, I don't want them anywhere near a DZ. If they're going to answer a poll here, I hope their jumping days are in the past. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hilarious! Someone has a sick (=excellent!) sense of humor. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That does sound strange, and I can see why he would be frustrated. How can these people even get on a flight to the US? My experience with international travel is that I have to show that I have a passport, appropriate visas, etc before I can get on the plane. No airline wants the expense of taking people back, plus these days there probably wouldn't be an empty seat. No disagreement from me about that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nope, don't know a thing about real-world Chuck, just what online-Chuck chooses to show of himself. And that seems to be someone who isn't much concerned about facts. Your own words: "I didn't know whether it was real or not when I posted it. I didn't really care." Not much hope for an intelligent discussion when that's the attitude, which is too bad as I'd like to hear some actual debate from more of the conservative side. Lawrocket (and a couple of others on certain topics) shouldn't have to carry the whole load. Since you did now respond to my earlier question, I'll reply in turn and let's see if we can have a civil discussion, shall we? I agree we should be enforcing existing immigration laws. See. that wasn't hard, and we already agree on a major point. When it comes to "shutting down the borders", I am going to assume you mean preventing people from being able to sneak in illegally (as opposed to literally closing the borders to all types of legal crossing including tourism and legal by-the-book immigration). So you are probably talking about a border wall, and having enough border patrol agents to efficiently police the borders, am I correct? If so, I would agree that the border patrol is understaffed for the job they have to do. Again with the agreement thing! But, especially regarding a border fence, I have some questions. Firstly, if you were to build an effective fence that could really keep people from crossing, what's to keep people from going around the fence? So, even if you fenced the whole Mexican border (as that is the main route of illegal immigration), wouldn't people just take boats and land on the shore, or go to Canada and sneak in from that side? So, aren't you really talking about a fence along the entirety of both the Mexican and Canadian borders, plus every foot of both coasts from Mexico to Canada? And, to be 100% effective, that fence would have to be so high you couldn't get over it, so low (deep) you couldn't get under it, (no tunneling), and so on like the old spiritual song. How much would that fence cost? Trillions surely. Even with the limited fences being built now along the southern border, the government is having to confiscate American citizen's land to put the fence on (you can't put it in the middle of the Rio Grande, and you can't put it on the Mexican side, so you have to take land from Americans to do it). Imagine doing that up and down both coasts, and the whole Canadian border. Plus, I don't know about you but my idea of America is offended by the idea of being confronted by a 12-foot high solid steel fence instead of beaches on the coast or beautiful mountains in Gacier National Park (which is shared with Canada, it's Waterton Lakes National Park on the Canadian side). So my point is, except in some limited areas a border fence is unworkable because of expense, the need to confiscate excessive amounts of land from US citizens, and so on. Do you disagree? Is there a possible alternative to a fence, which would be equally or more effective but at less cost (not only in $$ but in those other things too)? I think people come here illegally because this is where the jobs are. If it was impossible to get work here, or government benefits of any kind, unless you had legal status (US citizen, or on an immigrant visa that allowed you to work such as a green card), people would have no incentive to come here illegally, and the ones who were here already would leave of their own choice with no need for the government to round them up and deport them. Does this make sense to you? How could that be achieved? It turns out we would only have to enforce already existing laws, no new laws would be required. In order to get a job, you have to have a valid social security number. An accurate, rapid, easy to use system for verifying social security numbers was supposed to be in place years ago, but it was never funded properly and the system that was set up is full of mistakes, so employers don't use it. These days, for a few million $$ it should be possible to set up an accurate database that could be accessed online or by toll-free phone, so any employer looking to hire someone could check their social security number in minutes, and at least find out if the number is real and is associated with the same name as the applicant is using. Existing payrolls could also be checked, to get rid of employees who are using false social security numbers, and that would get rid of lots of illegals. Businesses that neglected to check employees would be fined, and businesses that knowingly or negligently hired illegals would be fined more severely, to remove any potential profit motive to continue to use illegals. Businesses that made the effort to check, and nevertheless were fooled by people using a real social security number and the correct name (which would be identity theft),would not be subject to prosecution. Of course this might not catch all the people hanging around in front of Home Depot hoping to get some day labor job, but these people could be subject to spot checks, and anyway that job pool is too small to draw large numbers of illegals to this country. All that would be required for this to work would be 1) an accurate (including up to date, no dead people please) and easy to use database of social security information, and 2) government agents (they could be put under the Border Patrol, even), whose job would be to check businesses to make sure they were verifying social security numbers. In principle there would not even be any new burden on business, as they are supposed to check social security numbers as it is, although many do not bother. Do you think that could work? Do you agree it would be simpler and much less expensive than an all-encircling border fence? At any rate, that would be my "liberal" suggestion. I'm looking forward to your thoughtful response. And an open invitation to any and all, should that plan work or have I overlooked something significant? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, so I guess you don't actually know anything about the reason for the holdup in deportation. It's not always a bad thing that people have an opportunity to appeal an immigration decision. When I and my family filed for US citizenship, USCIS messed up my son's paperwork and denied his application. I had to file an appeal, and pay a $630 fee, to get them to take a second look at his paperwork. At the appeal hearing, a different immigration officer looked at my son's paperwork for 30 seconds, said it was all in order and there was never any reason to deny his application, and scheduled him to take the citizenship oath that afternoon. However I was still out $630, we had to endure 10 months of not knowing what would happen to my son (would he be deported back to Canada?), and he missed a chance to vote in November's election which he really wanted to be able to do, all because of their mistake. Immigration officers are only human, they are underfunded and overworked, and so they make mistakes. Allowing people a chance to appeal incorrect decisions so their lives aren't ruined because an immigration officer was in a rush and isn't a "liberal plot", it's basic American fairness. IMHO If employers in certain industries were to pay a realistic wage, those jobs would be filled by Americans I'm sure. Of course our chicken would cost a bit more. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd be curious to know why they can't deport known illegal immigrants. Do you have any info on that? Are they awaiting trial? Have they had kids, who would be US citizens if born here? The latter gets messy as you can't legally just deport the kids, and you can't deport the parents and leave small kids without adult caregivers, which does leave immigration officers in a frustrating no-win situation. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In another thread, a couple of days ago, I asked you a serious question, about whether you had any realistic, workable suggestion about how to reduce illegal immigration. You never bothered to respond. It's not the first time I asked you an honest question and you disappeared. However you did apparently find time to dig up this little shit-bomb, which you evidently knew was a lie from the start, so you could get a reaction from the "liberals". From this I conclude that you have no real ideas about anything of substance, just an abiding need to nurse your pathological hatred of all things "liberal". Kind of pathetic really. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I have no problem with this at all. Bumper sticker mentality. Sounds good, but how will you do it? To do it, you have to be able to tell who is illegal and who isn't. Since birth certificates are easily faked (just ask all the Obama-isn't-a-natural-born-citizen whackjobs), to do this authentic citizens would have to carry proof of citizenship that is not easily faked, such as a passport or national identity card, and be willing to produce that proof whenever anyone questioned their citizenship. Of course all hell would break loose from the political right if the government was to demand that. I can hear the Nazi comparisons already. You seem to think you can somehow know just by looking at someone if they are American (or perhaps by listening to them), but you can't, and you also can't just go around ordering people deported because you, marks2065, think they don't look American enough. In the other thread you said send illegals in the prisons home. We already do, once their sentence is complete, so I assume you meant instead of imprisoning them here. So what you are offering as a serious suggestion is that when illegal immigrants are arrested for a crime, we just kick them out of the country. That'll show 'em. And for sure their harsh experience with American justice (being sent home and all) will ensure they never try to come back. Get real. You consider refusing necessary emergency care to US citizens who have never done anything wrong, because you happen to think they might be illegal, to be "hurt feelings"? You consider deporting US citizens who have never done anything wrong, stranding them in a foreign country where they really are not citizens and have no way to come back, to be "hurt feelings"? What would you have to do to someone to cause them actual harm? And your suggestion is that there be no rule of law, just your gut feeling about who is a real American and who is not? Marks2065 is the decider, and there is no appeal. Once again, MY suggestions were based on the premise that, if there are no jobs for illegal immigrants, there will be no incentive for them to come here illegally. So: 1) Really set up a fast, efficient, and accurate system to verify social security numbers. We were supposed to have this years ago, but because of congressional foot-dragging we do not. 2) Require employers to make a good-faith effort to verify social security numbers before employing anyone. Every University I have worked for already does this, because they risk losing eligibility for federal research grants if they do not. 3) Severely fine employers who hire illegal immigrants. This of course would require that the government actually make an effort to check the employment rolls of businesses, instead of turning a blind eye as has been done in the past. What is "not committing to an actual policy" about that? Where is the "grey area for lawyers to rip it apart"? Plus, MY suggestions do not require anyone to carry proof of US citizenship, just have a valid social security card to get employment (and let's say government benefits too), which is already legally required. Could it be that YOU do not want the responsibility of making sure the people you employ are not illegal? Could it be that you want the problem fixed, but you yourself don't want to bear the smallest inconvenience but rather want someone else to take care of it for you? Could it be that you don't REALLY care about the problem, you just enjoy the opportunity to rip on the Government, especially now that Obama is in office? And I still think you owe Billvon an apology, though I'm sure hell will freeze over before that happens. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That's a pretty shitty thing to say. It must be a pretty dark world you live in if you really believe things like that. In another thread (http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3651402;page=7;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;) I asked you to suggest a real course of action to address a problem (illegal immigration). You gave a POS knee-jerk bumper sticker mentality answer that had obvious major problems. When I pointed them out you said I was "making excuses", so I gave some real suggestions that would actually address the problem we were discussing. You never bothered to comment on those suggestions one way or the other. It's almost as if YOU are the one who isn't interested in fixing problems, just finding things to whine about so you can bitch about Obama. I hope you can prove me wrong by offering a constructive workable solution for some of these problems once in a while. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

also true. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm thinking of you guys too, although you don't know me. I guess our little skydiver community is like that. I like the sentiment of the poem "I'm not there" ny Mary Elizabeth Frye. Maybe it'll help some, I hope so. Don Do not stand at my grave and weep, I am not there, I do not sleep. I am in a thousand winds that blow, I am the softly falling snow. I am the gentle showers of rain, I am the fields of ripening grain. I am in the morning hush, I am in the graceful rush Of beautiful birds in circling flight, I am the starshine of the night. I am in the flowers that bloom, I am in a quiet room. I am in the birds that sing, I am in each lovely thing. Do not stand at my grave and cry, I am not there. I do not die. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I hope he didn't barf himself out of existence. Come back, Vinnie. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

NEWS FLASH!!! OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS BREATHING IS ESSENTIAL FOR GOOD HEALTH!!! Hah! Now watch all the right-wing ODS types hold their breath until they pass out. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you have "graduated licenses" (at least I think that's what they're called) where you live? Here in Georgia, for the first 6 months after getting a license, kids can't have anyone else in the car while they're driving except one other family member, so no friends. There are some other limitations, they can lose their license for speeding at a lower threshold than people with full licenses for example, but there are so many exceptions for that it's kind of a joke. The main thing is to eliminate the distraction of talking to friends until they get some experience behind the wheel. It hasn't been in effect long, so I don't know if the sample size is sufficient to see if it's helping or not, but I don't see how it could not. Unfortunately a lot of adults allow their kids to ignore the law, and there's no way for the police to know who is allowed to have passengers and who isn't unless they have other grounds to stop the car. This summer, two of my daughter's friends were killed, and a third critically injured, in a rollover/fire accident. The driver had had his license for only two weeks, so he should not have had any passengers, but he wanted to go to a mini-golf place with his friends and his mother said OK. The survivor, who was in the back seat, told police the kid driving was turned around to talk to him (the survivor) when he lost control. I bet that mom will relive and regret every day for the rest of her life that she let her son ignore the law that day. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Do you have any evidence that the gov't is using it as a tool, as opposed to just handing it to people to take away and read on their own or not as they see fit? I didn't see any requirement to fill it out and send it back to any agency, unlike tax or census forms that are tools. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Wendy, The estimate of 18,000-22,000 additional deaths is from a series of Institute of Medicine reports. The most recent is here: http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/20090224iomamericasuninsuredcrisis.pdf It seems the methodology was a fairly simple comparison of mortality rates of uninsured vs insured. A study by RG Kronick published this month (abstract and link to full article is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19453392?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) (epub was available April 21 2009, so still a very recent paper) reanalyzed the mortality data, factoring out things like smoker/nonsmoker, obesity, etc. He found that all the differences in the IOM study could be accounted for by lifestyle associated factors, and insurance did not have a significant influence on mortality. From the abstract of the paper: "CONCLUSIONS: The Institute of Medicine's estimate that lack of insurance leads to 18,000 excess deaths each year is almost certainly incorrect. It is not possible to draw firm causal inferences from the results of observational analysis, but there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States." Elsewhere he says that the results were not what he was expecting, and indeed he has a long history as an advocate of improved access to health insurance, so there is no indication that the findings were "cooked" to fit a political leaning. My personal take on things: 1) The study only examined mortality (death) as an outcome variable, and the sample of patients was capped at age 64 as it is assumed that at 65 everybody goes on medicare and is therefore insured. Given the average life expectancy in this country (white females: 80.6 yrs; black females 76.5 yrs; white males 75.7 yrs; black males 69.7 yrs according to the CDC), the sample size of expected deaths prior to age 65 might not be large enough to detect subtle influences, especially considering that many of those deaths would be due to accident or homicide, where insurance might be moot. Also, as has been pointed out by many posters on this and other threads, when it gets to the point of life-or-death situations, everyone can just show up at the hospital and they have to be treated, so in that sense no-one is really denied life-saving treatment regardless of insurance status. The question is, who pays for the treatment (patient, taxpayers, other patients who are insured, or the hospital eats the cost?). This last-minute intervention will also (IMO) obscure the role of insurance in influencing outcome. Basically, lack of insurance correlates with other lifestyle choices (diet, smoking, exercise vs couch potato, etc) that are more influential than insurance when it comes to risk of dying. 2) I really think a more useful metric would be to look at morbidity (sickness) and disability. The WHO now uses a measurement called the DALY (Disability Adjusted Lost Years) to measure the impact of disease on economic productivity. There are lots of diseases that won't kill you (so no impact on mortality), but they will disable you to the point where your ability to work is diminished or eliminated entirely. River blindness (Onchocerciasis) is an example of one such disease that I happen to work on. You can live with chronic heart disease well past 65, but you might not be able to walk up a flight of stairs (much less handle a full shift at Walmart). My intuition (and obviously I haven't done a statistical analysis) is that lack of insurance will lead to delayed treatment and a greater risk of chronic illness and disability (increased DALYs in the no-insurance group). 3) Another interesting thing to look at would be life expectancy past age 65 in the group that didn't have insurance up until medicare kicked in. Hope this helps, Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The government administers medicare. It does so because, in a system where medical insurance is to an overwhelming extent obtained through ones employment, retiring means also losing your insurance (except in the case where you belong to a union that negotiated coverage as a retirement benefit, such as the auto workers you guys love to hate on). As retired people tend to be older (duh!), and older people have more medical issues and so expenses, no private insurers were willing to cover retirees at rates that were affordable to any but the most wealthy. In the absence of a free-market alternative, the government was compelled to create medicare. Given the average life expectancy in the US, it is safe to say that end-of-life decisions in the great majority of cases apply to retired people on medicare. So absolutely the government DOES have an interest in encouraging people to think in advance about these issues. Let me ask you, is your hatred of Obama and the government so strong that you plan to refuse medicare and social security, if in your opinion they are none of the government's business? Or are you all hat, no cattle? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

WTF are you talking about? Have YOU read the document? It is completely reasonable, and I would hope that every skydiver has gone through this sort of thing with their family. YOUR LIFE-YOUR CHOICES, what could possibly be wrong about that? Anyone who dumps end-of-life decisions on their loved ones without providing them with pretty specific information about what treatment they would want to receive is selfish and thoughtless at best, negligently inflicting unnecessary pain and distress on their own families. If you do it out of your blind hatred for Obama, that's truely demented. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

That was REALLY funny. Thanks for the laugh. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sort of a federal constipation? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm afraid that's true. It's even worse when the whole community is in the same situation (such as housing projects). If everyone around you is on welfare, it must be normal, right? It's especially bad for the kids that grow up in a community where no-one is self sufficient. How are they supposed to learn that that is not OK? I'm not opposed to a hand up for those who really need it, but I think the way we do it is often does more harm than good. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, admitting it is the first step towards a cure. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Sure. I'm just saying that simplistic knee-jerk solutions are unlikely to have the desired effect, and are likely to have unintended consequences such as American citizens being required to carry proof of citizenship, which seems to upset civil libertarian and privacy advocate types, or risk being denied needed services such as emergency medical care. What CAN be done? I'd suggest: 1) create economically realistic avenues for legal immigration so people have a viable alternative to sneaking across the border (I talk about this more somewhere else so I won't repeat the whole thing here.) 2) create an accurate, fast mechanism for employers to check the social security number of potential employees. Congress mandated this years ago, but never funded it properly, and so a half-assed system with an unacceptably high error rate is all that is in place. Last I heard, almost 5% of legitimate social security numbers were erroneously rejected as false, because of misspelled names in the database and similar clerical errors. If you are a citizen whose social security number is rejected, an employer could not legally hire you, and you could be arrested for using a false number. Because of the high error rate, many employers refuse to use the system to check applicants. Fix it, and use it. 3) Once (2) is up and running, fine the ass off any employer who knowingly or negligently hires illegals. Find the CEOs and sew up their assholes till crap comes out their eyes if need be. The last administration refused to do this, in fact prosecutions of companies fell almost to nothing, because like it or not illegal immigrants are great for some businesses. You can pay them squat, ignore workplace safety rules, demand 16 hour work days if you want, and they can't complain because they're illegal and if they complain they get deported. But Americans look the other way (while whining about all them illegals) because they love their cheap chicken. 4) if companies want to bring in labor from Mexico or elsewhere, make them pay for the visa costs and provide health insurance so the taxpayers don't end up subsidizing the companies profits by paying for the employees health care. Either that, or pay wages that allow the workers to pay for their own health related expenses, in which case Americans might actually be interested in taking those jobs. Of course, your chicken will cost a bit more. How's that for a start? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Could be, I don't have any data about that. My point was more that the article had three different numbers, and the most negative one was chosen for the headline, because it was the most sensational or perhaps reflected the politics of the writer. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)