Re: Illegal Immigrants Inundate Hospitals

From: Bill (xxx_at_yy.zz)
Date: 01/16/05 

Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:54:49 GMT

"H. Reader" <historyreader@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XUhGd.5407$Os6.4466@trnddc08...
>
> "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
> news:jA4Gd.17446$by5.4669@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "H. Reader" <historyreader@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:pt3Gd.604$J6.104@trnddc02...
>>>
>>> "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
>>> news:NO%Fd.9239$Vj3.7537@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>> "H. Reader" <historyreader@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:hj_Fd.4014$IP6.165@trnddc05...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
>>>>> news:OYWFd.6170$JJ7.1946@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It clearly was. Unless you believe Native Americans created America.
>>>>>>>> And, again, I can list a lot of inventions that immigrants or
>>>>>>>> childern of immigrants created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The average percentage of immigrants in the American population
>>>>>>> across
>>>>>>> our history is about five percent. Are you claiming that five percent
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the population "created" the US. And what the hell do you mean
>>>>>>> by "created." Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, among others,
>>>>>>> created the US. Americans built this country, not immigrants.
>>>>>>> Those are just historical facts. Furthermore, I wasn't aware
>>>>>>> the inventing some gadgets amouts to creating the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Almost everyone in the US is an immigrant, or has an immigrant going
>>>>>> back a few generations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having an immigrant "going back a few generations" makes no one an
>>>>> immigrant and is not an indication that this nation was "created" by
>>>>> immigrants.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is. Because you or I or anyone without pure Native American
>>>> heritage would not be here.
>>>
>>> Now you're playing word games.
>>>
>>
>> It is just silly to say no you are the one playing word games.
>
> It's simply accurate.

At least you admit it.
>
>>>>>> That is almost no one who is here today would be here without
>>>>>> immigaration.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. So?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So immigrants created this country.
>>>
>>> No, actually, they had children who populated the country. Those
>>> children were known as Americans, and those Americans and
>>> their descendants created the nation. Your claim -- which seem
>>> ever-shifting -- now is something like claiming that a handful of
>>> seeds created an orchard, when in fact the seeds needed to
>>> have a good place in the gournd to grow, had to be watered,
>>> the seedlings had to be tended and propogated, more trees
>>> needed to be planted, the tree needed to be pruned and
>>> shaped... and so the trees became a productive orchard.
>>> The original seeds didn't "create" the orchard.
>>>
>>>>That is if there were never any immigration than almost all the people who
>>>>are here now would not be here.
>>>
>>> How narrow and banal.
>>>
>>>>>> Washington etc. was an immigration a few generations back.
>>>>>
>>>>> So?
>>>>>
>>>>>> By created I meant making America the World power it is today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Immigrants did not make the US a world power.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure they did. It was not until early in the 20th Century that the US
>>>> became a power. You need a lot of people, for one thing, to do that.
>>>
>>> The US became a world power in 1898, when the population was less
>>> than 100 million. The British were the premier world power in 1900, with
>>> a population of fewer than 50 million. The Japanese in 1940, a
>>> substantial
>>> world power, was about 80 million. The Germans in 1940 had a population
>>> of maybe 60 million. The Chinese had a population of about half a billion
>>> in 1940, but were losing a war to the Japanese. India, with a population
>>> of
>>> about 300 million in 1940 was owned by the British. Population doesn't
>>> make for world power. And immigrants don't make for world
>>> power either.
>>>
>>
>> Yes but it is relative to the size of other countries.
>
> What is "it?" Try something more than a non sequitur.
>

I thought you were smarter than that. "It" , as you should have been able to
figure out, is poulation size.

>>>>>>>> But the one that scares me the most is the A bomb. If this were
>>>>>>>> invented elsewhere America might well be a very different place - or
>>>>>>>> do you dispute that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I dispute most is your flabby use of langauge. And I'm
>>>>>>> wondering
>>>>>>> when it became popular to practically beatify immigrants as some kind
>>>>>>> of creators of the US. It's just so much nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which says absolutely nothing to address the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> What? That without the A bomb, this country might be different?
>>>>> Okay. It might be different too without sliced bread. What's your
>>>>> point?
>>>>> That immigrants "created the US?" What you assert as fact isn't, and
>>>>> your logic isn't much either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we did not have the A-Bomb and someone else did the world would be
>>>> very different.
>>>
>>> Another banal, flabby assertion... What is that supposed to mean?
>>> Because
>>> some immigrants participated in the Manhattan Project, they created the
>>> US?
>>> Some of them were refugees, actually. Would you say that refugees created
>>> the US?
>>>
>>>>>> " But the one that scares me the most is the A bomb. If this were
>>>>>> invented elsewhere America might well be a very different place - or do
>>>>>> you dispute that."
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. And if birds had bands up their butts, there'd be
>>>>> music in the air. Some immigrants worked on the Manhattan
>>>>> Project. And to you, that means that immigrants "created"
>>>>> this country?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was Oppenheimer and Teller who were the key creators.
>>>
>>> Oppenheimer was born in New York. Oppenheimer directed
>>> the project, was the brains behind it, and assigned Teller and
>>> others to certain tasks.
>>>
>>>> Einsten who got Truman to start it.
>>>
>>> Actually, the project began under Roosevelt.
>>>
>>
>> You are right about that. However, the point was he was the one who got it
>> started.
>
> So Einstein "created" the US?
>

No. Why would you think that? Use common sense.

>> And the point you keep missing is that without immigrants - such as
>> Einstein. Teller, and Szilard (lets ignore childern of immigrants) - the
>> whole thing would not have happened.
>
> So you think that only one person is capable of having a certain
> idea. You're speculating. The most you can claim is that it might
> not have happened. "Woud not have happened" is nonsense.
>

It certainly would not have happened as it happened. And it might have
happened entirely differently. That's the point.

>> If another country had the A-bomb - say Germany - do you not think the
>> world would very different today.
>
> Does your banality have a point? If the sparrow hadn't died in the barn,
> the world would be different. And what does a different world have to do
> with who created the US?
>

There is no banality. So your question can not be answered. If you can not
figure out what Germany having the A-bomb before the US would have done. Well
I'll leave that to others to judge.

>>>> Suppose another country had the A-bomb and the US did not do you deny
>>>> that the world would be different?
>>>
>>> What does the condition of the world have to do with your
>>> ridiculous assertion that immigrants created the US?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we had listened to your logic, we would have closed the door
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around 1820 and America would not be what it is today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we had done that, the country would have a population of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 150 million, would be freer, have a smaller government, more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> local
>>>>>>>>>>>>> control ... Lots of things would be different, and frankly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lots of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things would in my view be better. What America is today isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at all what the Founders had in mind, or for that matter, what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the people living a couple of generations ago would believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1820 the US population was around 10 Million. Right now the
>>>>>>>>>>>> fertility rate is about 2.1 children/women - i.e. about
>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement level. So I'm not sure how you justify your 150
>>>>>>>>>>>> Million figure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Replacement level wasn't achieved until about 1970. Throughout
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> 19th and for much of the 20th Century, Americans had much larger
>>>>>>>>>>> families.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are right about that. But I still don't know how you could
>>>>>>>>>> justify the 150 Million figure- you have to take into account the
>>>>>>>>>> earlier deaths also back in the 1800s.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most people who survived childhood lived lives of a length
>>>>>>>>> comparable
>>>>>>>>> to the length of lives today. The statistics from the past
>>>>>>>>> indicating short
>>>>>>>>> lifespans are a bit bent by infant mortality. A woman might have
>>>>>>>>> nine children, three or four of whom die in childhood, and those
>>>>>>>>> deaths at those ages are figured into the average lifespan. My
>>>>>>>>> figure of about 150 million is something I remember reading
>>>>>>>>> a decade or more ago, a study on the US if none of the waves
>>>>>>>>> of immigration had ever occurred.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really don't think that is true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure you don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's the problem people are claiming now with Social Security -
>>>>>>>> more people are living to older ages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Certainly medicine and nutrition have allowed some to extend
>>>>>>> their lives, but generally people are living to about the same ages as
>>>>>>> they always have. Again, infant mortality bent the figures on life
>>>>>>> expectancy. In 1900, life expectancy was figured at about
>>>>>>> age 45. Infant mortality was tremendous then, in comparison
>>>>>>> to its rate today. Even the Bible, of which you seem so fond,
>>>>>>> mentions something about three score and ten. As to "more
>>>>>>> people," that is certainly true. There are simply a lot more
>>>>>>> people today in this country than there were a hundred
>>>>>>> years ago -- about three times more, in fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since neither of us can justify our impressions of this, it is
>>>>>>>> probably not worth discussing further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you're immune to facts and logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your facts and logic on this matter amout exclusively to a study you
>>>>>> vaguely recall reading a decade ago - is that not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why did you say this:
>>>>
>>>> "My figure of about 150 million is something I remember reading
>>>> a decade or more ago, a study on the US if none of the waves
>>>> of immigration had ever occurred."
>>>
>>> Why do you quote that material in the context of a discussion
>>> of mortality rates? How odd of you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The issue was how do you project population figures from 1820. You quoted
>> the 150 Millon figure. And I challened how you justifed it. Do you recall
>> now?
>
> You might try to keep your arguments in context. Yes, I read a study a
> few years ago. So what?
>
>

You are being obtuse. It is not that you read it. It is that you quoted it.
But can not support it.

That was and is the point. Can you refute that?

Bill

Quantcast