Illegal Immigration effects House Representation/Presidential Elections

See, there you go again.

Once more for the record, this whoever guy was not a member of "the body of our nations lawmakers," he was not even associated with them, he was simply stating his belief in front of the body of our nations law makers. And everyone and every kind of belief and statistic has been argued in front of them. Especially, of late, on the issue of immigration.

When you quote someone and state that such and such was said before Congress you lend it more authority than in fact it has now don't you. You act as if Congress actually said it, or imply that it has validity because that is where it was spoken.

Some of the dumbest things ever said were said in Congress especially by special interest groups. Just ask Will Rogers... another

.

Thanks for the reference info, if I get the time tonight I'll look over it.

 

Nor does it imply it should be discounted or ignored BECAUSE it was stated in front of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. As you will observe when you read through the transcript of that particular hearing, each member of the committee was given a specific amount of time to ask questions from people closely associated with the illegal immigration problem, so while in some cases they are asked to state their opinions, they also are asked questions about well documented numbers kept by the hospitals and government agencies involved. Hardly statistics one can ignore unless one willfully chooses to be ignorant of the facts that are laid out in front of them.

No problem. Enjoy.

 

No, you said it was skin color, I was approving part of it had to do with culture, which is devoid of skin color....and more restricted to localities and media influences.

For example, Europe generally is more left politically, is it not? A lot more than America. America's system of government is maintained by a matter of locality influences and media. The right came here, and effected the very structure of America. Some are influenced over time of the correctness, and others were just given a system.

So, people have their concerns racist or not. Politically, they were correct in the long-term. Those people were used to get political ends.

No one wanted to become cops,...really.

The difference is the numbers of people stopped, and there was no continuely flow. Personally, I think America has been haphazard with it's immigration policy (always), and that's why it slowly lose it's freedom....because that's what a vote is now-a-days. It's not a method to maintain it, it's a method to errode it.

Perhaps you'll see my final end in this. I want educated individuals from all nations, because I trust educated individuals so much more with my liberty. The poorest of poor people (especially in latin america), while I sympathize, will almost always side with their interests...and vote for people like Daniel Ortega. I will not hand my liberty over slowly, just so the poor of other nations are appeased.

Education in itself is a culture, and one which I believe is far more valueable to America. I know, there must be a sense of bias in you; something drives you to support this rather haphazard policy of yours, rather than a concise one, which truely helps America.

And there are machines ready to replace their picking of fruits and whatnot.

And then there's my fruit and vegatables, grown from my friends huge plot of land. The rest of farming is prodominately done by normal americans....I should know, because a side of my family still does it and makes their living at it.

 

Perhaps you'll see my final end in this. I want educated individuals from all nations, because I trust educated individuals so much more with my liberty.

See that is a fundamental difference between us right off the bat. I trust righteous people, and have my misgivings about intellectuals and ignorant bigot types both (who when collaborating tend to become NAZI's and stuff like that )

Also, having lived in Iowa would you please let all the farmers out there know that in America - it's fifteen percent!!! It's NOT included in the bill!!!

Or maybe soon enough they'll have them thar robots you're so fond of waiting their tables too along with cleaning them plates and all the rest of it.

Incidentally, there is a great history of New York called The Gangs of New York written by Herbert Asbury in 1912, I believe. It is where Scorsese got the title of his film and much of the flavor but none of the truth. This book is but one source relevant to the Irish cop issue.

 

Righteous? That seems like a rather arbitrary standard. What exactly is that? Someone Christian, someone athiest, someone muslim, someone non-violent? How do you really determine that by policy? Do you just assume that? Ask it on survey when they apply for citizenship?

Education is a standard that one could validate. You can't validate virtue or 'righteousness' (for the better part); those things are abstract or subjective. Generally, morality and politics is a matter of debate, not of fact. Things could be done multiple ways, but it's the consequences that are most important; not the abstract theory of what is righteous or not.

No one will wholly agree on such.

My other standards would be age. More young, college-bound kids, than old people. All my standards are enforceable. Yours sound rather unenforceable, and feeling-driven.

 

Not really, in fact, far less than someones idea of "intelligence."

Intelligent compared to whom? I mean, I can pretty much guarantee you ain't no Einstien. But Einstein and his milk man both knew what was right and what was wrong. It is the stupid who are not beholden to this standard, and the "intellect" which can reason it away when it suits.

See it's like what that Chief Justice once said, that he couldn't actually describe pornography, but that he knew it when he saw it.

Righteousness is actually far more quantifiable than "intelligence."

What you really mean is your intelligence. The way you see things, so long as they see them same like.

But righteousness has it's roots in the history of everything. From how to behave, to how to get things done. It's what's what.

Everyone, sans the arbitrary psychopath, knows what's what. I trust them what stand by that universal standard... And I don't give a fuck if they know how to spell C-A-T.

 

The appropriate word was 'educated', not intelligient. Too completely different concepts. Ones skill oriented, with basic knowledge; while the other is a matter of quick comprehesion (in particular situations). You can be either and not be the other.

Education and youth is something one can validate. But even this has to be tempered to proven needs.

The closest you can get to 'righteous' in validation, is saying one doesn't have a prison record,...which means a couple billion people should be given citizenship. Why not allow the boats of Chinese in as well, as Canada's courts did? They're righteous enough, aren't they? Oh, and if half of Africa applies, why not them, too? They're 'righteous' enough...

Point is, when are there reputable limits or is this just a favor for Central America?

It appears you're twisting my arguement. Reread my last response, and tell me where I used the word 'intelligience'. Can't find it, can you?

How about I answer that with the appropriate word:

'Educated compared to whom?'
In American standards:
12th-college graduate. That'd be the appropriate comparison in the context I'm using.

Einstein believed in socialism. He's wrong already, imho. Notice in my 'opinion'.

'Education' not 'intelligience'! *shrug*

Please, quantify righteousness for me (without using a man-made standard on morality).

Really!? Nice mind-creation pal.

Diversity I welcome in thought, but physical force against me, I don't. You may not understand how this all correlates, but just add together 2 and 2.

Hint: Democracy isn't merely opinion, it is force.

It's a religious term, and nothing more. Man wants to believe he's more important than anything else, but in the grand scheme of things he isn't.

Que?

Forget everything else. Forget the other man that's FORCED to pay for him at times. That's righteous, isn't it!? That consequence is acceptable, isn't it!?

 

Validate education how? By degree? Which degree? If you imply no synergy here between education and intelligence then what's the point? If that were the case then naturally a certain kind of degree would be preferable to you for the purpose of immigration over another. Which one is it? For if the thing is the degree then not only a certain kind of degree, but a certain school would be preferable.... Which one is it? LOL.... Ridiculous.

Hmm, yes, I see now... One can be educated and not intelligent.

Now, lets talk of educated peoples. Lets start right at the top with Josef Mengele. Highly educated and, I understand, a great conversationalist at dinner parties. Very well educated indeed.

Osama Bin Laden had primary, secondary and university education. He also has a degree ("a validation") in public administration. His number two man is a doctor. Do you "trust" them with your liberty

Theodore Robert Cowell was a highly educated young man, even gaining admission to law school. We know him today as Ted Bundy.

Your position that "educated" peoples are who you trust with your liberty in conjunction with this discourse on immigration is an insult to every uneducated immigrant who ever came to this country... and for the purpose of our discussion, let us say legally.

You say righteousness cannot be validated or quantified, yet you can easily enough identify those educated men that are NOT righteous now can't you. How can you explain away all the educated folk who live in countries without freedom? Are these the ones who will

With what, their degrees? Why do they not defend their own? How could you "trust" them with yours? Educated peoples all. No, liberty and the passion to defend it, lies within the bosom of man, not on the chalk board, bro.

Again, everyone knows what's right and what's wrong. C.S. Lewis wrote (in his appendix of The Abolition of Man) a comparison of the moral teachings of ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans and observed nothing so much as a profound difference across land and time. IN fact, this educated man came to believe in a moral standard of righteousness which transcends external sources, such as schooling, and socio-economic stratas, and is found to lie within the man.

Certainly this Dean of Cambridge College found righteousness quantifiable, and education, while validatable, no bellweather of the inner man at all.

I will trust a man who has standards of morality, ie: righteousness, as the quality I find admirable and trustworthy over a man's degree any ol day. I'm not giving the guy a job, afterall, I'm discussing what kind of man I want as a neighbor, a fellow citizen.

?

I am responding instead to your implication of intelligence while you have not the courage to call it so.

For what do you imply one gathers with all this education? Hmmm? When you write things such as:

What are you really saying about them? What are you really saying about yourself?

And what would you say now about all the Irish immigrants of the 19th and 20th centuries? Hmmm? Highly educated? LOL... Really, you prove your own point once again, and mine in the offing - that education is no gaurantee of intelligence and therefore "quantifiable" as what?

Fact is, at the heart of your premise lies prejudice, not matter how you slice it.

Your write:

One wonders how many uneducated men paid for your "liberty" with their blood.

 

They have a higher potential in the market or perhaps even have the expertise to start a business.

Depends on the needs of America. There should be a panel, which looks at areas of our economy, where wages are out of control or there's extremely high demand. Even if it's jobs that require no education at all (omg)! But the difference is that immigration should be orderly...not in chaos.

Obviously some people must be watched, and prevented from entering this country at all times.

So, you could find many example of crime from the educated...doesn't make a shade of difference. Bad apples exist within the poor, the rich, the middle-class, etc. If we had some way of looking into a crystal ball and seeing 'ones' righteousness', we wouldn't need cops....the streets would be clean.

So....people should feel insulted for not striving for some form of education. Atleast high school education or being able to read a book.

But I grant people of the past the benefit of the doubt. The need for education wasn't as obvious as it is today.

Could you tell Ted Bundy was a killer before they caught him? NO. One obviously doesn't let in killers to ones country, but you can't read everyone...some will naturally creep within 'legal' means.

You sound like educated people are the anti-christ. They're less likely to use social service, and therefore supported less. They'll usually not cling to idealogy, and most will eventually step on to practical ground politically.

I trust people that are responsible for themself....completely.

If you don't know what liberty is, how can you defend it. I've known literally hundreds of people that immigrated legally. Many from latin america. Almost nearly all of them, especially new, believed liberty and socialism are okay together. LOL. It takes time to appreciate the facts of America, and socialism isn't fact of America's Constitution. Education gives them a more diverse view of the world, and prompts self-exploration, often.

Sounds all nice and fuzzy, but these are man-made standards on morality. This is the realm of beliefs, not of science.

And I'm sure you can look in your 'crystal ball' and find out if the guy in front of you is always as he says he is. And I must assume your job must require very little of the man, in order for him to get a job on righteousness alone.

They gather a higher means to support oneself. The likelyhood that they don't put a burden on society financially (not granting some will be morons).

America has taken a big shift since the 50's. Poverty has gone down incredibly, especially for black americans. Poverty doesn't end with a pool of the poor, it ends with educated minds.

Look at India, who is mostly operating on private schools. That nation will eventually be one of the most dominant economies in the world. Most of the people there realize the importance of education, and it's practical competitiveness. They will eventually rise-up from being poor, even faster than most others....because they realize it.

Immigration in the past gets really fuzzy. No real means of communication were available in the past. Well, not reputable. Labor was still an extreme value in America, while today it's a lot more marginalized.

It's not exactly ideal immigration in my mind, but it makes sense to that period of time.

Labor will be like farming. Big then, not so big in the future. To me that's self-evident.

Ha...the likelyhoods, and the facts are not prejudices. They're wise policy vs unwise policy. If I'm forced to pay taxes; which I am!.... I better have an opinion on how to restrict the growth of those taxes.

The benefit of the doubt (ie those poor people we let in) should be of geniune need economically, and should be sponsored. If they're of need, they'll work a job where the wages won't be incredibly depressed, and if they're sponsored, they'll have someone financially responsible for them.

Wise policy vs unwise policy.

Oh god. People do what they want out of their own will and reasoning. I'll never ask another man to live for me, nor me to live for another man. My sacrifices are of my own chosing.

 

India has and is changing over the last 15 years (guessing here) They will excel beyond many of its neighbors until they end up spending most of their time defending themselves. Their closest neighbor and enemy will have more of a reason to hate them having left them in the dark ages.


Anyways back to your discussion. Just a thought I had while reading that part.

 

Originally Posted by Dead Corn

Rick, you answer: "They have a higher potential in the market or perhaps even have the expertise to start a business."

First off, Rick, which market are you talking about? The busboy market? The landscaper market? The cook market? Which immigrants do you equate with which market?

Secondly, according to the Small Business Association of the United States Government, the Number and Distribution with and without Business Ownership by Type and Net Worth Size is (in the millions) 102.549. Non Business Owners are 89.490. All Business Owners are only 13.059.

You have, as shown by these "statistics," a very unrealistic view of the effects of education upon "ownership" of businesses in our fine country. Why must you impose standards upon immigrants that do not reflect the American experience?

3. Total Household Population is 93, 020, 101. Non-Business Owners comprise 80, 855, 648. All-Business Owners are but 12,164, 451. Again, you seem to be ignorant of the American Experience relevant to the Business Owner / Education ratio. Yet, you want to impose these unrealistic standards upon immigrants. You claim that the 'educated immigrant" is preferable for his "potential in the market." Yet you do not elaborate upon which market. You claim a synergy in an educated immigrants ability to potentially "own a business" yet there is no evidence that there is any such causal effect of education upon the American populace at large. In fact, quite to the contrary.

IN fact, Rick, the statistics for Business Owners in America having a college education are actually only 48.9%. Less than one out of every two. [Source: Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances].

Your conception does not hold water, nor your application of your misconception upon the effects of education upon immigrants and their ability to own a business in America. It simply ain't true.

You write:

.

Precisely my point. So why hold up this criteria which is historically unAmerican, and statistically innaccurate regarding education as a qualifier for immigration?

You write:

No, of course not, not when they are, in fact, facts. But as you can see, yours are not, and therefore ARE prejudices.

You write:

That is not a sacrifice at all, but simply a choice. The sacrifice I allude to is of one man for another. And in the case of giving ones life for the cause of Liberty, it is irregardless of whether the "other" appreciates it or not. And certainly transcends your standards of "education."

 

Notice that word.

I said PERHAPS they have the expertise to start a business. Actuality is different than potentiality.

As for the question:Refer to the Census Bureau for an interesting statistic (if you can stomach racial views)...

Bachlelor degrees:
White: 30%
Asian :Nearly 50%

Median House hold incomes:
White:45K
Asian:60K

I focused on these two, because it's not a statistic that shines terribly on 'minorities' in favor of 'white people'. It merely shows you that an educated house makes more money.

This has nothing to do with what I said. Obviously someone whom looked at my words without intent of changing meaning would understand that. Not that you're doing that, but it seems you like to change the meaning of the things I say.

As though:
Intelligient compared to whom?...is the same as:
Educated compared to whom?

What's wrong with asking for college-bound kids? Was the Japanese girl I knew not important enough? She came here on a college visa, and finished school, yet she isn't as important as an illegal immigrant or an uneducated immigrant....atleast that's the sentiment.

Then there's a girl I corresponded with in Venezuela, whom find her country going down the hole, and she desperately wants to leave. She's a teacher, and I really think she deserves a chance to be here, but our standards are not interested in her as much as...you guess.

Your mind-creations baffle me. You're perverting my language by asserting what I'm saying.

First you say I'm using the idea of 'intelligience' as a standard, rather than 'education'; now you're chasing shadows to prove anything I say is wrong. But if you simply comphrended the words I used, rather than the meanings you wish to impose on them, you'd actually have more of an honest debate.

If one use the word 'perhaps', they're denoting an opinion that 'maybe' it helps out. It's not an assertion, it's appropriate langauge to denote opinion.

Wouldn't doubt it, as most people don't even get a degree in America. But again, this has nothing to do with my comments.

Shadow chasing.

Just like the waste of time you call this response.

Describing what is or isn't American isn't 'kosher' to me. America's government has done a lot things, what you might describe as 'good' or 'bad'. Establishing one as 'American' and one as not, is merely an opinion of your own...that's it.

America's history is what it is.
------------------------

Refer to the asians^^^, whom are generally making a great deal of money. Do you think they'll need all those social programs AS MUCH?

Do you think taxes will raise due to their expansion of welfare, (generally)?

Now, the asian culture is mixed of many races and beliefs. Not everyone of these cats are going to be responsible people. Same with any other race of people. But the stats from the Census Bureua show you a rather simple fact. Education usually lends to more highly responsible individuals....in fiscal matters. They tend to have higher homeownership rates and lower poverty.

Note: Review this interesting site that explores education and disparity (from the 2000 census) on different asians. It's highlighed, so just look for 'Average' and 'earns'.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...rns&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Race shouldn't be the factor, in fact I believe our choses should be color blind. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for those standards. It's perfectly reasonable to make reason out of chaos.

Once you read correctly, I'll award you a star. lol

Most men don't even read the Constitution, nor understand the concept of our government. The right's of the government to regulate immigration/naturalization, which our executives have woefully ignored...has always been there for congress. You seem to not care for those Constitutional authorities. Our past executive branch(s) are showing that as well.

Liberty and practicality go hand-in-hand, thus the Constitution. Liberty is something people fail to appreciate, because they don't understand how the idea came to be so famous, nor what are the very tenets of it. They'd much rather sound 'right' and support their own bias, than protect liberty with an objective opinion.

"I have established it as a maxim neither to invite nor to discourage immigrants. My opinion is, that they will come hither as fast as the TRUE INTEREST and policy of the United States will be benefited by foreign population--George Washinton.

If you would like to discuss the idea of liberty, I would love to speak of it.

 

Rick, you now want to pound this point which is, of course, irrelevant.

Here let me explain why. My answer to you, and yes, I quote:

Note not only the word "potentially" to your "potential." Note the entire premise to your original argument which you, quite rightly, now seem to want to back off of. Actually, this is the sign of an intelligent mind, Rick, and nothing to be ashamed of. It is a stubborn and ignorant man who does not change in the face of truth.
You write:

Never germane to the argument now was that? - though true enough. To remind you though and not to get off on a rabbit trail. Rick, we were discussing immigrants.

You write:

Never attempted to. I DID describe to you the composition of owners v non-owners relative to education in America, as you suggested something otherwise than the truth. I hope that helped.

You write:

LOL... How's the fishing, Rick?



Well, look, I can't even read the rest of your stuff right now because I have to get to work. It was far less interesting, however, I must say than the last go 'round in which, by your backing off and twiddle-deeing today, I can see you realize you were wrong. The thing is that NOW you just won't admit it, and I don't have much time for that kind of thing. Not during work hours . Later, if I find it still amuses me, I'll return to your... ah, your... ah...

Oh, yeah, Rick, you have not answered the question I have asked regarding your post. Which immigrant in which market (does your little story of the Venezuelen suffice do you think?). Nice story though.

I find your answers are fraught with intellectual cowardess. You make a statement, you refuse to defend the statement, but instead attack the person questioning. This is Ad Hominem and Ad Hoc at it's most blatant. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Only to you, whom has nothing but little neligible points to argue about.

None of what I say is irrelevant, as it addresses/debunks your mythical issues.

No, actually only your mind isn't capable of understanding it. Potential in a market, is just being capable of getting a higher paid job...in most circumstances. Job 'market' ring a bell?

Someone whom has a higher education, will factually have a better chance of getting a higher paid job, statistically.

LOL...

EDUCATED immigrants. I notice that point didn't get to your mind. OH well, it's not like many have.

Your 'owner' issue...it's a mind-created issue, from you not interepeting my English properly. But continue to ride this non-issue, as it shows how unimportant the rest of your opinion is.

All mind-creations. You believe what you want to, but anyone with the general understanding of common English will decipher what I say easily (especially if they stick to my context). If anything, they'd ask before they assert.

There's no backing-off, there's just your weak attempt to pervert the English language. As seen, you go from your first weak attempt of addressing the latter part of that sentence, to the second weak attempt to the beginning. Both wrong contextually.

But you didn't bother to figure out the context, you just asserted I was wrong. Actually,... that's not completely right...you were on your way to finding out the contexts:

First off, Rick, which market are you talking about? The busboy market? The landscaper market? The cook market? Which immigrants do you equate with which market?

But you strayed and asserted something neligible to what I wrote:


Your conception does not hold water, nor your application of your misconception upon the effects of education upon immigrants and their ability to own a business in America. It simply ain't true

An educated immigrant vs an uneducated immigrant, will likely get a job that requires an education, pays more, etc.

Maybe you're understanding the context of that sentence, now...rather than assuming.

One of many things comes to mind in your reasoning, is either:
1)You lack a real arguement for illegal immigration, so you try to make false arguements against opponents
2)You can't decipher common English, and you truely believe the shit coming out of your mouth
3)Or you just didn't realize or understand the context, therefore you thought whatever came out of your mind was a plausible arguement.

Either way you're wrong, and you've dedicated an entire response to non-issues.

 

Love the rhetorical acrobatics, Ricky boy...

You know, I once saw a Russian bear back-peddling on a tricycle and thought it quite amusing too

I'm bored of your callow arguments.

On to the next subject. Better luck there, young man

 

Well before you go marching off to the next topic, you did promise to read the transcript from the House Judiciary Committe and present an opposing argument (directly from the transcript I believe) to every single point I culled from the transcript. Did you find that it lacked the material you needed to back up your argument?

 

Avi8tr writes:

Avi8tr, let me tell you alittle about me... I have five children. I am the sole provider for them. For the most part I come here for alittle intellectual distraction and then I jump back into life.

We are moving in two weeks, only four blocks away. But it is six bedrooms as opposed to the five we live in now for the same exact price. I also, after four years, was forced to buy a new car - why you ask? The old one broke down.

Meanwhile, career-wise, there is absolutely no doubt this is the most exciting time of my life.

I have promised you and I mean it - I will get to that site.

Bear with me.

 

Not a problem--I think we're all here for the same reason then. Congrats on the house; sorry about the car and good luck on your career! I will patiently wait for your response.

 

Oh, Avi8tr, don't I want to scratch the skin right off my face!!! I just lost internet connection after writing a response to you for over an hour!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Well, maybe it was for the best, let me just try and encapsulate in a tenth that time now.

I read the minutes of the Committee you provided. Thank you for that. Very very interesting reading.

Here's the thing though Avi8tr, I feel it kind of proves my point. Let me tell you how.

The title of this particular session of this particular Committee on this particular day was: HOW DOES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IMPACT AMERICAN TAXPAYERS AND WILL THE REID-KENNEDY AMNESTY WORSEN THE BLOW?

Every single invitee this day was invited precisely because of his known negative opinions of the effects of illegal immigration upon the economics of the American populace. It's the position they were considering that day.

But on other days, before this very same committee, we hear the opposite. One bit I found was from another session in Indiana, (I believe the one you provided was the first, in San Diego).

Under the heading Workers Not in Competition with Immigrants, the Committee records the following minutes and testimony:

"If immigration reduces wages for less educated workers, these wages do not simply vanish into thin air. Employers now have more money either to pay higher wages to more educated workers or to retain as profits... The National Research Council, in a 1997 study estimated that immigration reduced the wages of those with less than a highschool education by 5%... These workers are the poorest 10% of the workforce. But this reduction produced gains for the other 90%... thereby generating a net gain for natives overall."

That's why I say, Avi8tr, we should be diligent in when quoting statistics and opinions said "before Congress" that we do not give the impression that these statements therefore carry the weight or opinion of that august body.

In the example you supplied it did not carry that weight. Much to the contrary, the Committee was called to discuss a bill which had already passed one house.

 

Been there, seen it, done that--I feel your pain!

Glad you enjoyed it--there's more where that came from...

So Dead Corn, here we come to the crux of where our opinions diverge. While I agree with you completely that each invitee was invited to bolster the point of view expressed in that particular session, it does not in any way discount the validity of their views, ESPECIALLY in light of a) the credibility of the invitees based on their personal experiences with the immigration problem and b) the source of their information, which was data from the department of corrections, the state department of education (imagine that--government statistics being used to make a case back to the government), and data obtained from the admission records at the many hospitals affected by the illegal immigration problem. There were no presuppostions here--just hard cold facts.

Again, I don't disagree with you that statistics can be skewed and opinions can be expressed to support or tear down just about any position on any topic, which is why it is so important to consider not just the opinion expressed, but the veracity and integrity of the individual (or group) making the statement and the overall credibility of the source(s) from which the statistics were obtained. In the case of the statistics/opinions I mentioned it is my opinion that the witnesses in question passed my veracity test (others may disagree because it does not match their view of the world) but I cannot comment one way or another on the veracity of the witness or his/her source of information since you have provided me with neither the name, nor the source.

I will state my personal opinion that to my own logic and reasoning, it is apparent that according to the law of supply and demand, one cannot flood the marketplace with low cost labor and foster higher wages for US citizens at the same time--such efforts would be diametrically opposed to one another. Consequently, in my own mind, the quote you mentioned above is suspect--but then again, I'm just expressing my own personal opinion here. One thing that we both most definately agree on is that when it comes to credibility, both the House and the Senate are seriously lacking.