Illegals

[Root beer]

Preach4bass, if you cite this site properly on academic paper, then this web site would be consider a source.  

Wikipedia, however, will not be. I've argued with these professors, they will not accepted it. I know a guy in my Comp. I class went to Wikipedia, and clicked on links at bottom and used that link as his source.  :-X

Now, me? If someone shows me Wikipedia, I'm not going to accept it. I rather them do the research the hard way. Many professor believes if you use source outside Wikipedia, finding information hard way, you tend to learn better. It work wonder for me. For one of my research paper on OPEC I learned many things using multiple sources. I would not have learn that much if I try to use Wikipedia. Just a thought of the day.

[Bassn Blvd]

So this is about a story that happened in 2007?? And obviously it's been exaggerated with the addition of the 10k claim, which is totally false.

And please stop twisting critical information. The 'Wet Foot, Dry Foot Policy' is a modification of the Cuban Adjustment Act in that all Cubans are turned away unless they make it to U.S. soil. Previously, if they were found at sea, they would be brought to the U.S. They still have become legal citizens a year later or be deported.

And LESS immigrants are making to the U.S. now due to the 'Wet Foot, Dry Foot Policy'

I think you guys are assuming they can stay in the country as illegal immigrants, which isn't the case.

the 10k part of the story is more than likely false. But, once they (cubans) reach dry land then they are here to stay. Who do you think is going to track them down a year later to make sure they obtained citizenship? People from Guatemala get the same deal as the Cubans, reach shore and you stay. This does not apply to ALL Countries though.  And NONE of the info I mentioned came from Wikapedia.

[Muddy]

Legally, they can stay as long as they make it to land. They made it to land, therefore they are legal...

Fox is ac credible as Wikipedia, if this story was truely generated by Fox.

As study has shown that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica

It is not considered a credible source, by any university, as it can be easily edited with false documentation. This is true for St.Johns, GWU,Johns Hopkins and NYU, those are the ones I know for sure. If it is not good enough for accredited and highly respected Universities, it is not good enough for me to accept as proof of a counterpoint.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Dan knows this... The point is that Wikipedia can most likely be trusted.

I think Dan can speak for himself and it is not a reputable soucre, period.

[Muddy]

I'm not sure you can equate an influx of European immigrants (that 'naturalized') with what is going on now. Nobody ever heard "Press 3 for Italian" or "Press 4 for French". I think there is a huge difference between people that 'wannabe American' and people who 'don't wanna be ______ (insert nationality here).

America is/was/and always will be a country made of immigrants, by immigrants, but there has to be a breaking point. Maybe us border mooks (not talking canada here either) see a bit more of the strife/burden involved than some of ya'll northerners. Heck, we can't even properly enforce/protect our borders now, even if it's our actual property line. What next?

just my .02

b

Hey they said the same thing when the Italians got here, they even swung Sacco and Vanzetti from a rope, and they were later proved innocent!

How would you feel if your wave of immigration was determined to be the breaking point. Go look as each group has come here, you can find many newspaper accounts similar to what we see now. Whites are soon to be the minority here, guess that has a few folks shaken up

[daviscw]

Legally, they can stay as long as they make it to land. They made it to land, therefore they are legal...

Fox is ac credible as Wikipedia, if this story was truely generated by Fox.

As study has shown that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica

It is not considered a credible source, by any university, as it can be easily edited with false documentation. This is true for St.Johns, GWU,Johns Hopkins and NYU, those are the ones I know for sure. If it is not good enough for accredited and highly respected Universities, it is not good enough for me to accept as proof of a counterpoint.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Dan knows this... The point is that Wikipedia can most likely be trusted.

I think Dan can speak for himself and it is not a reputable soucre, period.

Yes it is. More so than you.  

[Muddy]

Geez: I am so hurt by that, don't know if I can live another day :

[BrianinMD]

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

[daviscw]

Geez: I am so hurt by that, don't know if I can live another day :

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings old man. My point is that you expect everyone to believe you as a source when Wikipedia is as good as any source out there. If you've ever looked at Wikipedia then you would know that authors most of time list their sources at the bottoms of the pages. All you have to do is click on the links, and there is your source. It's not magic, and its not all made up.

[Root beer]

Geez: I am so hurt by that, don't know if I can live another day :

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings old man. My point is that you expect everyone to believe you as a source when Wikipedia is as good as any source out there. If you've ever looked at Wikipedia then you would know that authors most of time list their sources at the bottoms of the pages. All you have to do is click on the links, and there is your source. It's not magic, and its not all made up.

I tried that argument with academia. Eventually some people (not me) just used the link at bottom of page.

: But then again, not every source has direct links. There are still articles on there that are has a foot note next to it saying "citation requires"...

[Dan:]

Legally, they can stay as long as they make it to land. They made it to land, therefore they are legal...

Fox is ac credible as Wikipedia, if this story was truely generated by Fox.

As study has shown that Wikipedia is almost as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica

It is not considered a credible source, by any university, as it can be easily edited with false documentation. This is true for St.Johns, GWU,Johns Hopkins and NYU, those are the ones I know for sure. If it is not good enough for accredited and highly respected Universities, it is not good enough for me to accept as proof of a counterpoint.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Dan knows this... The point is that Wikipedia can most likely be trusted.

I think Dan can speak for himself and it is not a reputable soucre, period.

Of course I know that. If I could have used wikipedia for the scores of papers I wrote in the last four years it would have made things a lot easier for me.

Academics don't like to allow it as a source because it is publicly generated and edited, meaning there could be errors in it. The thing is, most academics don't know how accurate most of Wikipedia really is. They don't like it because they think there COULD be errors because of the way it is made. Also, they usually want students to be able to show research skills beyond what they find on the internet. But I've read about multiple studies that show that wikipedia is actually quite accurate, especially the stuff about science and math. Would I allow it as a source if I were a professor? No, because it is too easy and there is a small chance the information COULD be wrong, despite those studies.

But to say something like FOX is comparable to Wikipedia is ridiculous. There is a stereotype about FOX that has been generated by people that think anything that comes from them is wrong and can be written off as inaccurate because of its source instead of its content.

This FOX29 sounds like a local news station. I think they would be pretty trustworthy, at least if this "story" is actually true. Someone might have just used their name to make sure the story sounded legit. I really doubt the part about the $10k is correct.

[Muddy]

Geez: I am so hurt by that, don't know if I can live another day :

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings old man. My point is that you expect everyone to believe you as a source when Wikipedia is as good as any source out there. If you've ever looked at Wikipedia then you would know that authors most of time list their sources at the bottoms of the pages. All you have to do is click on the links, and there is your source. It's not magic, and its not all made up.

I wasn't asking anyone to take what I said on face value, a few posts back I put a link up that was a comprehensive GOOGLE SEARCH, it contained the actual law on the Federal Government site, a few scholastic papers and such. That is what I use as well as NETSCAPE, for peer reviewed articles and thesis papers.

  I have refrained from answering you for months and I am going back to doing so OLDMAN remarks and such are just plain disrespectful.

[Muddy]

Hey Dan:

Murdock through a hissy fit when the Democrats blocked him from owning the Post, and the major radio and TV station in NYC, he has been on a tear against them since.

FOX, has given us these gems

A supposed newscast from ENGLAND that was reporting the World Trade bombings before they happened>>>Proved False

The only exclusive pictures of the non existent WMD's in Iraq

Helped leak an active CIA Agents identity

That puts them somewhere just over wikipedia for me. The other networks and current newspapers arent much better, everyone trying to slant the news their way.

I use wikipedia, for pointing me in the direction for my music bio directions, but that is all I count on them for.

I know by how you write you are well read and you and I just see opposite sides of the fence, it makes things interesting and I enjoy it.

[5bass]

Sorry fellas, gotta lock this one down.