No I think you're being deliberatly wrong. The current bill does not address legal immigrants, which is why the video of Session stated in the first 20 seconds:
You quoted the relevant part: "that if you are here illegally, did not enter legally,
and you get a lawful status here in the United States, you then to not qualify for the Federal programs of Obamacare and Medicaid."
Not sure what to say. If a person gets lawful status, they are a legal resident. They're no longer an "illegal." And if you don't want the kids of legal residents to get healthcare, what do we do when they get sick or mom gets sick? Dump them on the ER I guess. Do you have another suggestion?
The perhaps you can explain why the INS release 60 thousand of them from jails into the population. Actually, you're 0 for 2, but nice projection there.
I don't know where you get that number, but what I know is the Dream Act excludes convicted criminals. You called those being released "Dreamers" - that's wrong.
Here's a summary:
This initiative, announced on June 15, offers a two-year, renewable reprieve from deportation to unauthorized immigrants who are under the age of 31; entered the United States before age 16; have lived continuously in the country for at least five years; have not been convicted of a felony, a “significant” misdemeanor, or three other misdemeanors; and are currently in school, graduated from high school, earned a GED, or served in the military. Within this population of potential beneficiaries, however, are three distinct groups:
So those released from prisons aren't "Dreamers."
You'll need to provide a legit citation showing it did go negative.
I have provided two - Pew and the Census. Provide your own evidence if you don't think either is "legitimate."
Now you start with the strawman - I never said I didn't like Pew. What I said was:
You said the polls or surveys are a snapshot. Of course - we need the estimates for different years, so yes, there will be different snapshots to tell us how the population has changed. This is necessary and obvious.
Second you said that the methodology could be a problem. Fine, that's true enough, so what is it about Pew or Census that you think biases the results? Other than you don't like the results, of course.
But don't let that stop you from mis-characterizing my statement in order to forward your intellectually dishonest and biased point of view.
When can I expect to see pictures of you eating dirt? There's a study saying it's good for you...
It's very simple - I try to find the best evidence available. If you don't like the evidence I have provided, the typical way to contest it is to provide other, more authoritative evidence, or at least make a persuasive case for why you reject the evidence I presented. All you've done is say, essentially, I don't need no facts, I have my opinion.
Fact is I don't need evidence to show how ridiculous your positions are. If I needed evidence that would suggest you actually have a leg to stand on, which you don't. :coffeepap:
OK, so you've made it official. Thanks. I should have read this first and saved myself some typing. You don't need evidence. Got it!