Really wish K-S-U would walk into the HEB Grocery store I shop at in south Austin just so I could see his head explode.
Really wish K-S-U would walk into the HEB Grocery store I shop at in south Austin just so I could see his head explode.
like it's ever open
Why bother to spend trillions to blow up people in far off lands if you're not even going to properly control the borders?
It's not about racism, it's about national security. If they want to relax immigration laws to make it easier to properly get through the system than so be it, but if you care about national security you don't fling the gates open.
Entire sections of Mexico and other parts of Latin America are controlled by bad people doing business with people only the Spaghetti Monster knows.
:lol:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F06%2F11%2Fezybegez.jpg&hash=27b0fa2a5bc11046e8b248e0b5606486ffc3a2a7)
:lol: :lol: :lol:
MCALLEN, Texas (AP) — The first lady of Honduras is to tour South Texas immigration shelters to learn the plight of thousands of Hondurans who entered the United States illegally.
Ana Garcia de Hernandez already has met Thursday morning with McAllen Mayor Jim Darling. Starting Friday, she is scheduled to visit several Border Patrol stations in the Rio Grande Valley and plans to remain in the area through Saturday.
The Border Patrol has been overwhelmed in the region by the number of immigrants entering the country illegally. About three-quarters of them are from Central America, with the most coming from Honduras. More than 15,000 unaccompanied children from Honduras have been apprehended since October.
Many of the immigrants say they are fleeing widespread gang violence and lack of job opportunities.
Is she coming to take her kids home?
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/first-lady-of-honduras-to-tour-south-texas-immigration-shelters/ (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/first-lady-of-honduras-to-tour-south-texas-immigration-shelters/)QuoteMany of the immigrants say they are fleeing widespread gang violence and lack of job opportunities.
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.
Adding millions of poor people to our already maxed-out welfare system is not the right thing to do. I don't understand why people cannot understand this. We are nearly 18 trillion in debt.
Housing, foodstamps, education (and school meals), hospitals, prisons, etc. - we're paying for all of it, and these immigrants rely heavily upon it. That's a big part of why they can send so much cash to family back south of the border despite earning low wages - we pick up the tab here.
i've changed my stance on immigration. i used to support immigrant amnesty for moral reasons and because we are a nation of immigrants and stuff. now i favor the browning of america because i'm so tired of old, scared white men.
I support amnesty because I think a healthy US economy benefits all citizens. Plus, it is just the right thing to do.
Adding millions of poor people to our already maxed-out welfare system is not the right thing to do. I don't understand why people cannot understand this. We are nearly 18 trillion in debt.
Housing, foodstamps, education (and school meals), hospitals, prisons, etc. - we're paying for all of it, and these immigrants rely heavily upon it. That's a big part of why they can send so much cash to family back south of the border despite earning low wages - we pick up the tab here.
i've changed my stance on immigration. i used to support immigrant amnesty for moral reasons and because we are a nation of immigrants and stuff. now i favor the browning of america because i'm so tired of old, scared white men.
so then they are wealthy american families now
This thread is really pushing the boundaries of trolling and unbridled ignorance.
This thread is really pushing the boundaries of trolling and unbridled ignorance.
It must suck to go through life scared of everybody that isn't like you.
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?
some of my best friends are white
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?
Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?
Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs). their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?
land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.
have a heart, fsd.
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs). their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?
land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.
have a heart, fsd.
I'm all for keeping them but sending the bill to their home countries
you have to be pretty effed up in the head to think its ok to send children back to their war torn countries after making the journey to America (land of free, home of the chiefs). their parents sent them on a long, scary trip just to get to the US; which they figured was safer and better for them then staying in their homeland...i mean maybe you guise are parents, but my god, you'd have to be pretty worried about your child's welfare to put them in those circumstances, now we're going to send them back?
land of gtfo and scared of little kids is more like it.
have a heart, fsd.
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally. The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally. The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.
It is very easy to make illegal immigration unattractive. It's just not easy to do that without losing millions of dollars from the economy, as Alabama learned a few years ago.
I think you have to find a way to give these kids amnesty and find a way to take care of them, but at the same time make it obviously and extremely unattractive for anyone to decide to come to the U.S. illegally. The first part would probably be pretty hard and expensive, the second part would be pretty easy.
It is very easy to make illegal immigration unattractive. It's just not easy to do that without losing millions of dollars from the economy, as Alabama learned a few years ago.
It's hard to find enough Americans and legal immigrants or temporary workers to replace those who are no longer allowed to work, but I think after time it would level out.
I'm certainly no expert, but isn't/ shouldn't there be a way to streamline processes to allow for easier access to longer work visas and smoother legal immigrations?
What's the difference between a refugee and immigrant?
Immigrants come here because they want to work for a much better wage than they could ever get back home and provide for their family. Refugees come because they don't want to get shot in the face execution-style.
Wyclef, tho.
It is actually very hard for an uneducated person to immigrate to the US legally. In most cases, they literally have to win a lottery to get here.
It is actually very hard for an uneducated person to immigrate to the US legally. In most cases, they literally have to win a lottery to get here.
the people that speak against illegal immigrants using the trope "they should wait their place in line and immigrate legally, like everyone else" are contemptible. if they want to argue that those people should have no path to immigrate to the us, that's fine, argue that. but pretending that other options exist beyond not immigrating and immigrating illegally is dishonest.
Lock up the border. Save us a ton of $$$ in the long run. Create a dead zone, think North Korea/South Korea. Rotate National Guard units down there every 2 weeks for patrol enforcement. Make it a HUGE deterrence to try and illegally get in. We waste sooooooooo much money on this thru welfare/free education/medical/etc.
The US-Mexico boarder is way more dangerous than the DMZ between North and South Korea. Think about that for a second.
Lock up the border. Save us a ton of $$$ in the long run. Create a dead zone, think North Korea/South Korea. Rotate National Guard units down there every 2 weeks for patrol enforcement. Make it a HUGE deterrence to try and illegally get in. We waste sooooooooo much money on this thru welfare/free education/medical/etc.
The US-Mexico boarder is way more dangerous than the DMZ between North and South Korea. Think about that for a second.
Exactly. Start dropping some bodies in that "DMZ" area and you'll have less illegals trying to cross.
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc
Yup, lets just start killing people looking for work and a better life so we can each save 10 dollars a year in taxes. Jfc
We would actually end up paying more in taxes, though. We really are going to start killing them because we just don't like their kind.
The New Colossus a sonnet for American Exceptionalism by Fake Sugar Dick
"...Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your whites, your Protestant,
Your blue-eyed masses yearning to pay a flat(fair) income tax,
The english speakers of your Northern European shore.
Send these, plus maybe some Asians, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
If the liberals were serious about immigration reform (code for amnesty), they would agree to real border security first, like a physical barrier of some kind.
There will be no amnesty until the flow can be stopped. You can't claim it would cost too much while the president asked for $2 billon to take care of kids that just arrived. How much do you think we're spending taking care of the millions already here?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)
Why are these doctors more concerned about these kids bringing diseases like strep throat, measles, and scabies into America than they are about treating the kids? It's not like any of those diseases are a big deal.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/ (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/02/medical-staff-warned-keep-quiet-about-illegal-immigrants-or-face-arrest/)
Why are these doctors more concerned about these kids bringing diseases like strep throat, measles, and scabies into America than they are about treating the kids? It's not like any of those diseases are a big deal.
is this possibly a conspiracy to eugenicize the children of the vaccine-birthers?
If the liberals were serious about immigration reform (code for amnesty), they would agree to real border security first, like a physical barrier of some kind.
There will be no amnesty until the flow can be stopped. You can't claim it would cost too much while the president asked for $2 billon to take care of kids that just arrived. How much do you think we're spending taking care of the millions already here?
Seems like the flow will stop when the free market dictates that all of the demand is met.
Yes, physical barriers, totally!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fda%2FBaarle-Nassau_fronti%25C3%25A8re_caf%25C3%25A9.jpg&hash=51918f3e65be0f555e9520454bc73b97d44f51c8)
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)
:lol:
Newly-arrived illegal immigrants being bussed to Walmarts with EBT cards (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/07/shock-video-illegals-arrive-in-bus-and-shop-at-walmart-with-ebt-cards/)
:lol:
Share this on Facebook
It is time to organize and fight. Obama will shoot us. No doubt about that. This a fight for our freedom and the next generations freedom.
The human trafficking is being done by the federal govt. They're coyotes now.
but it has to be "en masse"; a few hundred wouldn't do anything. tens of thousands would barely make a dent. A million people, armed to the teeth, might just do the trick but only if they are properly trained.
comment deleted
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/
lol
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-protesters-mistake-busload-of-ymca-campers-for-immigrant-children/
People are really upset about the federal government importing busloads of poverty into their communities because they refuse to control the border. I can't say I blame them.
Also, pretty funny that this is the headline CBS chose to run with. Instead of headlining the protest itself, they headline the protestors briefly misidentifying the wrong bus. No bias here. No crisis here - just angry white people. :whistle1:
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity. We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity. We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
can't say I blame them.
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity. We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity. We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?
Let them live here.
can't say I blame them.
Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity. We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?
Let them live here.
can't say I blame them.
Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.
Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.
can't say I blame them.
Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.
Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.
You don't agree that Obama's public pronouncements of DREAMer amnesty aren't to blame for this? So you think the immigrants themselves are lying?
Sometimes people forget that we're talking about people here. People deserve dignity. All people deserve dignity. We're treating these kids like trash, and it makes me sick.
People are demanding that the government retain custody of the children until they are returned to their families, rather than releasing them into the United States. At this point, our border patrol has been transformed into nothing more than taxpayer subsidized coyotes. What would you do? How long should this go on?
Let them live here.
Ok, so open border policy, then? And how many billions more should we spend on welfare to support them? Hell, Obama wants 4 billion just to hire more attorneys and judges to more quickly "process" them (read, release them for a court date they'll never make).
I guess when you're running a deficit of nearly $1 trillion annually, another 10-20 billion (for starters) just looks like chump change.
It could be said that the absolute unwillingness of congress to actually do something one way or the other regarding immigration is causing situations like this. After all, the $4B and the detention is all due to the current law dictating how these kids have to be handled before being deported. This is a Red and Blue issue.
can't say I blame them.
Glad we agree. I don't see as much sympathy for the dead children washing up in the Rio Grande. The whole situation is disgusting, and Obama's policies are to blame.
Dude, I'm no Obama fan but come on.
You don't agree that Obama's public pronouncements of DREAMer amnesty aren't to blame for this? So you think the immigrants themselves are lying?
No. People are poor and see prosperity in the United States and want to come here.
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have flocked to the U.S. in recent months, believing the Dream Act, as well as a 2008 law that grants an asylum hearing to any child not from a border nation, and the White House policy known as “prosecutorial discretion” means once they arrive, they’ll never have to go back.
...
Many of the illegal immigrants tell Border Patrol and Texas state authorities they learned from the media in their home countries that if they crossed the border to the U.S. right now, they’d be given papers and allowed to stay, border sources who interview the immigrants told FoxNews.com.
President Obama and his aides have repeatedly sought to dispel the rumors driving thousands of children and teens from Central America to cross the U.S. border each month with the expectation they will be given a permiso and allowed to stay..
But under the Obama administration, those reports have proved increasingly true.
The number of immigrants under 18 who were deported or turned away at ports of entry fell from 8,143 in 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 1,669 last year, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data released under a Freedom of Information Act request.
Similarly, about 600 minors were ordered deported each year from nonborder states a decade ago. Ninety-five were deported last year, records show, even as a flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America — five times more than two years earlier — began pouring across the Southwest border.
...
"Word of mouth gets back, and now people are calling and saying, 'This is what I said'" in court, said a senior U.S. law enforcement official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "Whether it is true or not, the perception is that they are successfully entering the United States.... That is what is driving up the landings."
It could be said that the absolute unwillingness of congress to actually do something one way or the other regarding immigration is causing situations like this. After all, the $4B and the detention is all due to the current law dictating how these kids have to be handled before being deported. This is a Red and Blue issue.
That's a cop out. The "red" have "done" plenty on immigration in the past - we've had several amnesties, including under Ronald Reagan. Each time, real border enforcement was promised, and never delivered.
This time, Republicans had one non-negotiable demand: border enforcement first. But because the Democrats won't agree to that, and because Democrats still hold the WH and Senate, the whole process has been stymied. You would think that "border enforcement first" is a reasonable demand - a majority of Americans agree with that - but Democrats insist on nothing less than "comprehensive immigration reform," which is just another amnesty wrapped in a broken promise.
Its not a cop out. Name an issue and there will be ppl telling you they are willing to negotiate as long as you do everything I want first. Thats just dumb and you know it.
Demanding border enforcement first, not negotiating anything, and then doing nothing just makes sure the issue is as bad or worse later.
Middle of the road has to be an option on all issues this big or nothing ever gets done. So, making intial demands that must be met before continuing forward at all is a very quick way of making sure exactly nothing happens. Again, you know that.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Ok, so open border policy, then? And how many billions more should we spend on welfare to support them?
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.
As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.
As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
I'll concede that Republicans blew a golden opportunity to pass real immigration reform in the early 2000s when they controlled the WH and Congress. Does that make me less partisan? I'm still right that demanding real border security as a precondition is perfectly reasonable, and the Democrat's refusal to agree to it is the reason for the current impass.
As for "cold," I recognize that these are children and they need to be treated humanely, but we can do that by returning them to their families. This uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is not good for America.
What would you like to see out of immigration reform? What should the standard for entry be?
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.
Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary. it would be nothing more than a waste of money.
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.
Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?
How much are you willing to spend on border security?
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary. it would be nothing more than a waste of money.
Step 1 is definitely necessary. Even if Step 2 were to halt all illegal immigration for jobs (and it won't), it still doesn't solve the problem of drug trafficking and other illegal activity. The border must be surveilled and secured.
I participated in black market labor for basically all of HS and College. I was paid cash wages, friends.
:billdance:
steps 2-5 make step 1 irrelevant and unnecessary. it would be nothing more than a waste of money.
Step 1 is definitely necessary. Even if Step 2 were to halt all illegal immigration for jobs (and it won't), it still doesn't solve the problem of drug trafficking and other illegal activity. The border must be surveilled and secured.
you can hunt drug smugglers without prohibiting the free ingress and egress of people. indeed, it is lunacy to suggest that the focus on preventing the latter does not make the former more difficult.
black market labor is a very minor problem in the united states, the vast majority of illegal immigrants work within the taxed, regulated job market. of course there would be some percentage of black market labor available to illegal immigrants, but it would not be a percentage that is nationally significant.
your last sentence is entirely unsupported by logic or fact. it is mere dogma.
Is there any doubt left that K-S-U is a terrible human?
Disagreeing on political issues doesn't make him a terrible human. I think he's being cold and partisan, but we all do that sometimes.
No, he's a terrible human.
Do they illegally use other people's SSN?
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.
Do they illegally use other people's SSN?
i'm not terribly up to date on the laws regarding ssn's; i don't know what is illegal and what isn't. most illegals have false documents of some sort.
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right? It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost. There's lots of that going on.
But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.
America is open for you!! . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.
Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.
Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?
How much are you willing to spend on border security?
Plenty, especially is we ultimately pay for at least some of it with a guest worker program. See my 5 Step Program.
I'd rather spend whatever K-S-U wants to spend on "border security" on feeding and educating these kids instead. We'd probably have enough left over to bring in a lot more, which would be great for humanity.
Great idea. How many more do you think we should take? Maybe an even million? Two million? Ten? At what point does a country that's already 18 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion per year, say "eff, we can't afford this"?
How much are you willing to spend on border security?
Plenty, especially is we ultimately pay for at least some of it with a guest worker program. See my 5 Step Program.
then I would pay for however many "plenty" would pay for
Why aren't we talking about walls and security at our northern border? White?Money, too.
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.
Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.
Why couldn't you say that without spouting off your Obama nonsense?
It's quite obvious somebody told them wrong because they're being deported and the administration has even thought about speeding up the process
It appears you love to engage in partisan hackery and bullshit.
Get a grip and be rational, this is GE..
Seth rogen, drake, that point guard from TX, etc. Don't be silly.
Something earthquaked of OKs top shelf, hit his head, and has him all concussion'ey and stuff.
Are these kids considered illegal immigrants, refugees or both? Something in between? It makes a difference. These kids are different from run-of-the-mill illegal-immigrants.
Why would they be considered refugees? They're coming for the exact same reason they've been coming for decades - poverty - not war or genocide. They're telling the border agents that the reason they're coming now is because they believe they'll get amnesty.
Why couldn't you say that without spouting off your Obama nonsense?
It's quite obvious somebody told them wrong because they're being deported and the administration has even thought about speeding up the process
It appears you love to engage in partisan hackery and bullshit.
Get a grip and be rational, this is GE..
You're joking, right? Deportations are now at a record low (http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations), and Obama and his Democrat cronies are assuring their activist base that they want to reduce deportations even more (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/17/obama_said_to_assure_hispan ic_caucus_on_deportations_123342.html).
Our immigration crisis is, historically, a bipartisan disaster, but that doesn't change the fact that it is currently a Democrat disaster. It is the Democrats who have (1) created this most recent tidal wave with promises of "deferred deportation" (translation to the immigrants: "amnesty"), and (2) held immigration reform hostage by refusing to adopt a bifurcated borders first process.
Obama is now confronted with two losing situations. The 38-40% of Americans that still "approve" of his job performance consist of hardcore leftists, young single women, african americans, and a dwindling number of blue collar white traditional democrats. If he says the children can stay, he alienates the blue collar workers and african americans. If he says they must be deported, he alienates the leftists. Either way, he's stuck in an electoral quagmire right before the midterms. So his solution is to do what he always does in tough political situations: do nothing. Make vague, non-commital public comments and hope and pray that the Congress takes action to send the kids home, which will alleviate political pressure and allow him to scapegoat the Republicans.
So who is illegally voting then? I'm confused
When did I say anyone was voting illegally. Amnesty does what Seven? What does it either do, or put people on the path to doing?
Do I have to diagram this out for you?
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right? It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost. There's lots of that going on.
But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.
America is open for you!! . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.
That makes so much sense. They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting.
Thanks Dax. :rolleyes:
Two different groups of people I am referencing.
Damn bro.
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right? It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost. There's lots of that going on.
But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.
America is open for you!! . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.
That makes so much sense. They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting.
Thanks Dax. :rolleyes:
Two different groups of people I am referencing.
Damn bro.
Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.
Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right? It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost. There's lots of that going on.
But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.
America is open for you!! . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.
That makes so much sense. They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting.
Thanks Dax. :rolleyes:
Two different groups of people I am referencing.
Damn bro.
Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.
Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.
If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right? It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost. There's lots of that going on.
But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.
America is open for you!! . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.
That makes so much sense. They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting.
Thanks Dax. :rolleyes:
Two different groups of people I am referencing.
Damn bro.
Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.
Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.
If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.
There are also those who don't turn themselves in because they want to keep their jobs.
The question is not about the people who turn themselves in immediately at the border, I mean hopefully they can checked out, right? It's the people who cross the border who don't want to turn themselves in, who want to to avoid DHS at all cost. There's lots of that going on.
But hey, that never seems to be a big deal to the resident progressives.
America is open for you!! . . . . As long as you vote Democrat once you're here.
That makes so much sense. They really want to avoid DHS, but are more than willing to expose themselves by illegally voting.
Thanks Dax. :rolleyes:
Two different groups of people I am referencing.
Damn bro.
Its pretty clear that is not what you were doing.
Your backpedaling is pretty pathetic.
If it needs to be spelled out, there are the kids and moms that turn themselves in because they believed they will get amnesty right away, and there is the other group that wants to avoid DHS for possible nefarious reasons. These are drug smugglers, terrorists, etc., that are enjoying the easy access into the US via our friends, Mexico.
There are also those who don't turn themselves in because they want to keep their jobs.
sys . . . of course you would say that because it's just opposite world for you 24/7/365
Embarrassing take injun, I mean it's all of this :facepalm: and a box of chocolates.
cRusty, when the border is basically wide open, and Border Patrol is 80% tied up in paperwork, why does a potential terrorist need a Coyote?
sys . . . of course you would say that because it's just opposite world for you 24/7/365
i actually say it because it would cost a fortune to try and "secure the border" with mexico to small groups of people with money and we'd still have thousands of miles of unsecured border to the north, thousands of miles of unsecured coasts and treaties with like 40 countries allowing their citizens to enter the us without a visa.
While that's true, Canada has very little to no corruption going to the highest levels of government and entire sections of Canada are not controlled by drug cartels.
sys . . . of course you would say that because it's just opposite world for you 24/7/365
i actually say it because it would cost a fortune to try and "secure the border" with mexico to small groups of people with money and we'd still have thousands of miles of unsecured border to the north, thousands of miles of unsecured coasts and treaties with like 40 countries allowing their citizens to enter the us without a visa.
While that's true, Canada has very little to no corruption going to the highest levels of government and entire sections of Canada are not controlled by drug cartels.
Because white
Fact 2) They are not coming for amnesty, ala what neo con demigod did. They are coming to escape the narco warfare for a chance at asylum.
Things not reported by the US media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)
Things not reported by the US media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)
Things not reported by the US media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)
What is your point? I hope it's not that you are taking the word of a farmer that patrols for illegals as hearing illegals suddenly speak great English to speak of how they feel about our president and his policy or view on immigration and legislation.
Cheers.Things not reported by the US media.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2712187/EXCLUSIVE-A-lot-people-die-blood-Obamas-hands-Shocking-images-corpses-illegal-immigrants-left-die-border-crossings.html)
What is your point? I hope it's not that you are taking the word of a farmer that patrols for illegals as hearing illegals suddenly speak great English to speak of how they feel about our president and his policy or view on immigration and legislation.
Things not reported by the US media
http://boingboing.net/2014/08/05/rand-paul-flees-mid-burger-jus.html
Gosh, I can't imagine why the Pres is waiting until after the mid-terms.
Chuck Todd: I'm going to go to immigration. You made a decision to delay any executive action until after the election. What do you tell the person that's going to get deported before the election that this decision was essentially made in your hopes of saving a Democratic Senate?
PRES. OBAMA: Well, that's not the reason. ... I want to make sure we get it right. I want to make sure, number one, that all the T's are crossed.
Chuck Todd: Looks like politics. I mean, it looks like election-year politics.
PRES. OBAMA: Not only do I want to make sure that the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted, but here's the other thing, Chuck, and I'm being honest now :lol:, about the politics of it. This problem with unaccompanied children that we saw a couple weeks ago, where you had from Central America a surge of kids who are showing up at the border, got a lot of attention. And a lot of Americans started thinking, "We've got this immigration crisis on our hands." And what I want to do is when I take executive action, I want to make sure that it's sustainable. I want to make sure that--
Chuck Todd: But the public's not behind you.
PRES. OBAMA: No, no, no, no.
Chuck Todd: Are you concerned the public wouldn't support what you did?
PRES. OBAMA: What I'm saying is that I'm going to act because it's the right thing for the country. But it's going to be more sustainable and more effective if the public understands what the facts are on immigration, what we've done on unaccompanied children, and why it's necessary.
Chuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...QuoteChuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...QuoteChuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...QuoteChuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
Because Chuck wants to continue to be in the room.
I'm not blaming Chuck Todd - he was respectful while expressing skepticism and repeating the question a couple of times - but wouldn't it be nice if a journalist would just once call the President out to his face for his bullshit? Something like (in the most polite and respectful tone)...QuoteChuck Todd: Look Mr. President, I know you're lying, you know you're lying, you know I know you're lying, you know everyone watching this interview knows you're lying, so why not just tell the truth? Isn't this strange little dance where we both have to pretend you're not lying a little insulting to us both?
That is pretty much what Chuck Todd did.
It seems disingenuous for the Fed to go around suing states to prevent them from enforcing their own immigration laws, then to turn around and just take "executive action" to usurp it's own legislation.
Read tonight Obama the High Overlord of Obamaland will issue 34 million guest worker visas after the election. I hope that the author of the article was high on something. It not, that will put a kink in every conservative's weasel.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?
Is "kink in his weasel" an actual saying or did reno just make it up? I ask because it's awesome.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?
Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?
Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.
I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
It's only political for the "libs". Republicans are simply being genuinely racist.
What voter demographic will likely allow the current Gov. of California to retain that office?
Nothing wrong with democracy in action, but it flies right in the face of the resident idiots and beyond who poorly attempt to say immigration isn't about votes.
Well, I don't really care who wins the elections. I just support amnesty because it is terrific for the economy, good for America, and the right thing to do. I can see why union bosses would oppose it, but I don't really understand why the republicans are getting so worked up about it.
It's only good for the economy if those granted amnesty are able to go on to be productive tax paying citizens. Unless of course your someone who thinks that social welfare programs and entitlements are a good form (not a form of, but a good form of) of economic stimulus.
But again, the primary point I'm making is that it's absurd to think that on a political level amnesty is nothing less than securing a massive new bloc of voters.
Why would they need to become citizens or qualify for social welfare programs?
Technically, you're supposed to be a citizen to receive benefits. That isn't always the case in practice, but I can guarantee the demand for these benefits - and resulting drain on our economy - will be much worse if immedially confer legal status to another 15-20 million (or more?) poor people. It's seems like common sense that, in a nation with an $18 trillion debt and climbing, we ought to reduce our welfare spending - not increase it.
I think government revenues will increase by more than the expense of covering the occasional fraudulent benefits claim.
Who said anything about fraud? I'm talking about the added cost of ER visits, schools, law enforcement, etc. Importing and legalizing millions of poor low-skilled workers is a really bad idea - especially when we've already got millions of poor unskilled Americans on the public dime. Let's see how unwilling they are to work for minimum wage when the welfare is cut back. How about we start there?
Make green cards like $5k each and good for three yrs. Constant income.Finance the 5k at 12% interest.
The people who feign sympathy for humanity are the biggest collection of delusional, disingenuous morons that exist in our society. They should have their citizenship revoked.
We should sell green cards.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-suspect-in-northern-california-shooting-rampage-previously-deported-20141025-story.html
I hear the bulk of the 34 million Obama Jackpot visa will go to Africans and other black nations. They will have low paying jobs. Sounds like a step up from slavery.
I hear the bulk of the 34 million Obama Jackpot visa will go to Africans and other black nations. They will have low paying jobs. Sounds like a step up from slavery.
New avatar for michigancat
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FINGhXqM.jpg&hash=b6bde277fb59a70afb7e2573ce11f1c407cb4b88)
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,”. . . “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.” Barack Obama
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,”. . . “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.” Barack Obama
There's a racist Republican who's also named Barack Obama? Wow.
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.
Sounds like a few years ago, Barack Obama was in "they took our jobs" mode, regarding those low life, work for nothing Mexicans.
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.
It's too bad the republican party is so racist against Mexicans. These immigrants would vote republican while making our economy kick ass if the republicans would just stop treating them like lesser life forms.
:lol: Let's break this down...
"Buncha racist Republicans": You know who has a bunch of racist Republicans? Oregon. Yup, deep red Oregon. 66% apparently, who voted to cancel a new state law conferring DLs on illegal immigrants. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141116/us-immigration-oregon-3fe495c4ab.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20141116/us-immigration-oregon-3fe495c4ab.html)
"They would vote republican": Poor people generally vote for the party that offers them more free stuff, especially when they are immigrating in such masses so as to not effectively integrate into society.
"Legalization would be good for the economy" - they're already here, and our economy isn't exactly going gangbusters. Actually, the labor participation rate continues to drop and wages are stagnant. Hmmm... Conferring legal status on illegal immigrants won't fix these problems or help our economy - aside from perhaps a marginal increase in tax revenue - but it will ensure an even greater strain on our social comfort hammock.
Mexico now requiring visas to cross the border. They want to keep better tabs on who is in their country. Bunch a rough ridin' racists.
mexico requires visas to cross which border?
how is this going to affect my upcoming AI?
mexico requires visas to cross which border?
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there. i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it. if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal. seven days without needing the permit instead of three. maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?
Mexico is doing more while we're doing less. That's the joke.
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there. i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it. if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal. seven days without needing the permit instead of three. maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?
The last time I went Mexico it cost 65 cents and there was no paperwork, so not sure what you're trying to impart here. If you fly they make you fill out some hokie visa that the flight attendant collects.
This visa is $28, so that would be more.
Mexico is doing more while we're doing less. That's the joke.
well, we already do way way more than Mexico with regards to visa requirements
mexico has required an entry form (basically a tourist visa) for us citizens for as long as i've been going there. i don't know what this story is attempting to impart, but it's doing a really shitty job of it. if the new permit (if it is new) is replacing the old one, then it is more liberal. seven days without needing the permit instead of three. maybe it is some new permit unique to persons only visiting baja?
The last time I went Mexico it cost 65 cents and there was no paperwork, so not sure what you're trying to impart here. If you fly they make you fill out some hokie visa that the flight attendant collects.
This visa is $28, so that would be more.
if you didn't get a visitor's permit the last time you went to mexico, either you're extremely old and went before they were required (no idea when that was, prolly around ww2), you stayed within 20 km of the border and for less than 3 days or you broke the law and should have been thrown in jail. the 65 cents you paid was probably a toll to cross a bridge or something. not related to legal entry into the republic of mexico.
the hokie visa that you have to get when you fly is the same hokie visa you have to get if you enter by land or boat (if you intend to stay for longer than three days or intend to enter further than 20 km from the border.
I'm sure we do more enforcement than Mexico does.
I'm sure we do more enforcement than Mexico does.
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.
Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers! :Woohoo:
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.
Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers! :Woohoo:
The long term unemployed would remain unemployed with or without this. They are unemployed because they are lazy and wouldn't even make minimum wage working the type of performance-based jobs that illegal immigrants are earning $20-$30 per hour from. The hundreds of millions of taxpayers see a net benefit from this, too.
This is great for millions of workers in America and the businesses that employ them.
Not so great for the tens of millions of long term unemployed, or the hundreds of millions of taxpayers. But yay for the lawbreakers! :Woohoo:
The long term unemployed would remain unemployed with or without this. They are unemployed because they are lazy and wouldn't even make minimum wage working the type of performance-based jobs that illegal immigrants are earning $20-$30 per hour from. The hundreds of millions of taxpayers see a net benefit from this, too.
And those just facts, folks.
What skills are required to perform unskilled labor?
What skills are required to perform unskilled labor?
Focus, attention to detail, physical durability.
As long as the government pays people to sit on their ass, they will sit on their ass.
This whole Imperial Leader crap from Obama on Immigration chaps my behind red, kinks my weasel, and throws me into slobbering mouth foaming nasty verbal tirade. We have to use Demoncrat tactics to strike back. Since each state has to foot the bill for civil and social services for the new Obama-Americans, the state's should establish a guest worker surcharge on state income taxes and charge a business a tax that employees them. If they become tax evaders they can be deported.
Obamamericans would have been better.
I am much more frustrated w the NSA bs than immigration.
Lib showed us he prefers a Stasi like "national" security environment . . . unless it comes to border security, then come on in and vote Democrat!
1. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America. (3/31/08)
2. We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress. (5/19/08)
3. Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works. (5/5/10)
4. [T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. (7/1/10)
5. I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed. (10/14/10)
6. I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws. (10/25/10)
7. America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. (3/28/11)
8. I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen. (4/20/11)
9. I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one. (4/29/11)
10. Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing. (5/10/11)
11. I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written. (7/25/11)
12. So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved. (9/28/11)
13. Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’ (9/20/12)
14. We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.] (10/16/12)
15. I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law. (1/30/13)
16. I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it. (1/30/13)
17. This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. (2/14/13)
18. I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively. (7/16/13)
19. My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress. (9/17/13)
20. f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out. (11/25/13)
21. I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year. (3/6/14)
22. I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting. (8/6/14)
I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. ... I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books.
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.
This is hardly the first time a president has used an unlawful executive order.
What would you like to see done? Mass deportations?
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
The law be damned. Even conceding what you just said, which isn't true... the law and the Constitution be damned.
This is hardly the first time a president has used an unlawful executive order.
What would you like to see done? Mass deportations?
I've already proposed my immigration reforms in this thread, repeatedly. And this is by far the most clearly unconsitutional executive order ever. It's not even close. It makes an absolute mockery of prosecutorial discretion, as even "consitutional law professor" Obama acknolwedged in prior speeches. It sets an absolutely terrible precedent for the executive branch.
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.
Right, I think there's a clause in the Constitution for that... where is it? Ah yes, Article II, Section B, Subpart (i) - the "The President Can Do Whatever the eff He Wants If Congress Doesn't Give Him the Laws He Wants" clause.
I feel like he's been pretty clear that congress has had plenty of opportunity to fix it and they didn't.
Right, I think there's a clause in the Constitution for that... where is it? Ah yes, Article II, Section B, Subpart (i) - the "The President Can Do Whatever the eff He Wants If Congress Doesn't Give Him the Laws He Wants" clause.
Isn't Immigration/naturalization under the executive branch? We do all kinds of things that isn't outlined in the constitution.
It's so strange to see someone who clearly supports an internal National Security Police state call other people "neocons".
Just doesn't add up.
Obama has an opportunity tonight to improve the lives of millions of people at no cost to the USA, and I think he will seize it.
How is he going to do that? On what authority?
These mind numbingly stupid comments must have some source. Regardless of political affiliation we must put governance ahead of political agenda. These are fundamentals
It's so strange to see someone who clearly supports an internal National Security Police state call other people "neocons".
Just doesn't add up.
The PrezArea says he is not changing a law just not enforcing them. What is the next law that he will ignore enforcing. Give Obama an inch and he will take a mile and our money.
The PrezArea says he is not changing a law just not enforcing them. What is the next law that he will ignore enforcing. Give Obama an inch and he will take a mile and our money.
I thought the payoff of his address was hilariously underwhelming, given the buildup this week. These people weren't going to get deported before, and they aren't going to get deported now. Except, now Obama is using taxes a ransom for their non-deportation. This is really not a big deal. At all. It doesn't move the needle whatsoever. In fact, we should all be thankful that Obama is asking these folks to render to Caesar.
it's ok because they didn't agree with the law. wasn't that your excuse for republicans breaking election laws?
Did the Senate pass a bill?
The best part about setting arbitrary cutoff dates like "only amnesty if you've been here at least 5 years" is that it's completely phony because it's impossible to prove. Are they going to lop off a leg and count the rings? Any "proof" can easily be forged.
It's also funny that only the people who have been breaking our laws for at least 5 years are rewarded. :lol:
Did the Senate pass a bill?
Sure a Democratically controlled Senate passed a bill that they knew a Republican controlled House would never pass.
It's the simple tactic of making it look like you're doing something and then throwing your hands up and the air and complaining that you can't get anything done because the other guys/gals won't just bend over and give you everything you want.
It's amazing to me how many people are Ok with the president behaving like a monarch and blatantly violating the Consitution he swore an oath to uphold, simply because it will "help" millions of people who broke our laws to enter the country. Just another cause/symptom of our decline.
Every president has executive order power when other branches aren't doing their job.
Every president has executive order power when other branches aren't doing their job.
More on this. Tell me about this being a thing. Use facts. Convince me this is truth. TIA
The President has the authority to issue executive orders to carry out powers reserved for the executive branch - typically orders with respect to foreign policy and as to how he intends to enforce laws. This is where things like "prosecutorial discretion" come into play. The president absolutely does not have the Consitutional authority to issue an executive order making new law or completely ignoring existing laws "just because the other branches aren't doing their jobs" - whatever that means. JFC. The very foundation of our Constitution is a system of checks and balances. :facepalm:
Anyone using quantity of executive orders issued by prior offices as a metric to defend this action is a rough ridin' nitwit.
Willy nilly enforcement of laws, reinterpretation and effective amendment of laws is not acceptable, and furthers the totalitarian police state we all should fear and our Constitution seeks to protect us from.
The presence of illegal aliens on our sovereign soil is not a rough ridin' foreign policy matter, that is the dumbest rough ridin' position you can take.
Illegal aliens are not immigrants and have not immigrated. They are tresspassers. These are rudimentary concepts.
It's amazing to me how many people are Ok with the president behaving like a monarch and blatantly violating the Consitution he swore an oath to uphold, simply because it will "help" millions of people who broke our laws to enter the country. Just another cause/symptom of our decline.
I hadn't noticed a decline.
The President has the authority to issue executive orders to carry out powers reserved for the executive branch - typically orders with respect to foreign policy and as to how he intends to enforce laws. This is where things like "prosecutorial discretion" come into play. The president absolutely does not have the Consitutional authority to issue an executive order making new law or completely ignoring existing laws "just because the other branches aren't doing their jobs" - whatever that means. JFC. The very foundation of our Constitution is a system of checks and balances. :facepalm:
This seems to fall under the category of the president deciding how he intends to enforce a law relating to foreign policy. :dunno:
I don't know that much about Obama's executive orders, or those of his predecessors.
I was asking if the substance of his orders differed substantially from other presidents'.
President Obama’s action to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and grant them work permits opens a new front in the decades-long debate over the scope of presidential authority.
Although Mr. Obama is not breaking new ground by using executive powers to carve out a quasi-legal status for certain categories of unauthorized immigrants — the Republican Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush all did so — his decision will affect as many as five million immigrants [it will actually be a lot more as I explain above], far more than the actions of those presidents.
Mr. Obama’s action is also a far more extensive reshaping of the nation’s immigration system.
“The magnitude and the formality of it is arguably unprecedented,” said Peter J. Spiro, a Temple University law professor. “It’s fair to say that we have never seen anything quite like this before in terms of the scale.”
The breadth of Mr. Obama’s decision is already raising serious legal and constitutional questions, fueling Republican charges of imperial overreach and worries among some Democrats of future fallout.
...
Alright, thanks for the answer.
Anyone using quantity of executive orders issued by prior offices as a metric to defend this action is a rough ridin' nitwit.
Willy nilly enforcement of laws, reinterpretation and effective amendment of laws is not acceptable, and furthers the totalitarian police state we all should fear and our Constitution seeks to protect us from.
The presence of illegal aliens on our sovereign soil is not a rough ridin' foreign policy matter, that is the dumbest rough ridin' position you can take.
Illegal aliens are not immigrants and have not immigrated. They are tresspassers. These are rudimentary concepts.
I wasn't using the number to defend it. I don't know that much about Obama's executive orders, or those of his predecessors. I was asking if the substance of his orders differed substantially from other presidents'. You obviously think so based on something, not sure what though.
this seems more like a laissez faire attitude than "imperialism".
a letter Thursday night signed by 10 of the nation’s top legal and constitutional scholars, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, a noted liberal, and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago, a conservative, that called the new policy “lawful” and “within the power of the executive branch.”
I woke up this morning feeling a little less free. Now I know why.
We're not really sure here Mr. President . . . Okay, go out and get me ten legal scholars that will sign a letter saying that I'm cool on this thing and feel free to emboldened with or threaten to take away federal research money. :bigthumbsuparoundtheroom
We're not really sure here Mr. President . . . Okay, go out and get me ten legal scholars that will sign a letter saying that I'm cool on this thing and feel free to emboldened with or threaten to take away federal research money. :bigthumbsuparoundtheroom
Hey dax they released the legal underpinnings of the decision (also unprecedented I hear), you should rip that little bitch to shreds. Really make them look like idiots that are talking out their assholes. Go!
I'm not saying they're incorrect. The complexities in the law at hand allow for a vast array of interpretations. I am lampooning the PR effort particularly as it relates to individuals under the employment of institutions that receive, in most cases, substantial federal funding. Sorry that was confusing for you (not really sorry).
You can't tap out of a fight you never entered.
Sorry bro, just facts.
Golly, does anyone know why we didn't get immigration reform back when Dems controlled Congress (and of course the Oval Office)?
To be fair, the Dem Congress had to devote all their energy those first couple years to not reading the Obamacare legislation.
I've got a question for goEMAW lawyers, so we have a ton of laws on the books, some really good ones like don't murder anyone that we enforce real well, some really old ones that nobody cares about and nobody tries to enforce, and some that involve current political issues like immigration, smoking pot, sodomy etc. This all seems like a very inconsistent mess, how can we as americans know which laws we really have to obey are? Turning on and off prosections of lawbreaking individuals and corporations seems like a scenario begging for corruption. What is the solution to my perceived problems?
You mean study all of current law and figure out how strict my local, state, and federal governments are going to be about stuff currently?If you plan on participating in questionably legal activities, yes.
What if I own a business and would never knowingly break a law, and my competitors give money to local politicians and start breaking laws that give them a big competitive advantage against me, when I point this out after years of getting my ass kicked the pol says,"that law is not a priority for us right now, bye".
So reluctantly I start breaking the law, then bam, i get arrested and go to jail while my old competitor is retired in Barbados?
Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?it is common, yes
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?it is common, yes
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it depends.The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?it is common, yes
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
it depends.The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?it is common, yes
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
In some cases it is healthy.it depends.The question is whether it is healthy for our country or not, and if so why?Totally made up, I thought you knew that, is it ok for politicians to selectively enforce laws or not?it is common, yes
(Pretend the laws i'm talking about are still important to at least 25% of the country)
Good talk Spracne, good talk
Quotea letter Thursday night signed by 10 of the nation’s top legal and constitutional scholars, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, a noted liberal, and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago, a conservative, that called the new policy “lawful” and “within the power of the executive branch.”
:eek:
:jerk:
:lol:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/23/snl_mocks_obamas_immigration_action_with_satirical_schoolhouse_rock_bill_sketch.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/23/snl_mocks_obamas_immigration_action_with_satirical_schoolhouse_rock_bill_sketch.html)
:lol:
When the media won't do its job, maybe parody is the best way to speak truth to power.
The case for open borders:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview
(A very good read, @sys)
The case for open borders:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview
(A very good read, @sys)
This really isn't very intelligent and nothing but the application of the most simplistic free market theory to a single good (labor). This is like a Macro 101 study on widgets, supply and demand.
If we're going to get rid of borders we might as well abolish customs, trade agreements, tariffs, all federal agencies and, while we're at it, the federal government, as there will no longer be a sovereign state to protect.
The case for open borders:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview
(A very good read, @sys)
This really isn't very intelligent and nothing but the application of the most simplistic free market theory to a single good (labor). This is like a Macro 101 study on widgets, supply and demand.
If we're going to get rid of borders we might as well abolish customs, trade agreements, tariffs, all federal agencies and, while we're at it, the federal government, as there will no longer be a sovereign state to protect.
interesting ideas. would definitely save some cash!
The case for open borders:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double#interview
(A very good read, @sys)
Ecuador Family Wins Favors After Donations to Democrats
MIAMI — The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials.
The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration.
It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador.
The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.
The Obama administration has allowed the family’s patriarchs, Roberto and William Isaías, to remain in the United States, refusing to extradite them to Ecuador. The two brothers were sentenced in absentia in 2012 to eight years in prison, accused of running their bank into the ground and then presenting false balance sheets to profit from bailout funds. In a highly politicized case, Ecuador says the fraud cost the country $400 million.
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)
Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)
Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?
Is the argument that people shouldn't get deportation hearings or be allowed out on bond?
Catch. And Release. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/ (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2015/01/27/mesa-qt-killing-suspect-subject-deportation-proceedings/22383351/)
Not to worry though. Now that the Republicans are in charge of Congress, we'll finally get a real border security bill! Right?
Is the argument that people shouldn't get deportation hearings or be allowed out on bond?
Given that something like 99.5% never show up for their deportation hearing, the argument would be that you hire more magistrates and require a hearing within 30 days, and you are not allowed out on bond. A bond, by the way, is almost never required, and was only required in this case due to a prior conviction. That would be actual border enforcement.
SESSIONS:
Well, just let me wrap up by asking this: Are you — if — if a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president’s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an American citizen first? Would you take action against them?
Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in America to compete for a job in America?
LYNCH:
Well, I don’t believe that it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce, and certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations.
SESSIONS:
Would you take action against an employer who says, “No, I prefer to hire someone that came to the country lawfully rather than someone given executive amnesty by the president”? Would Department of Justice take action against them?
LYNCH:
With respect to the — the provision about temporary deferral, I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral.
With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue.
I certainly think you raised an important point and would look forward to discussing it with you and using — and relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Loretta Lynch, our next Attorney General. She will be a suitable replacement for Eric Holder.QuoteSESSIONS:
Well, just let me wrap up by asking this: Are you — if — if a person comes here and is given a lawful right under the president’s executive amnesty to have Social Security and a work authorization card, what if somebody prefers to hire an American citizen first? Would you take action against them?
Do you understand this to mean that those who are given executive amnesty are entitled as much as anybody else in America to compete for a job in America?
LYNCH:
Well, I don’t believe that it would give anyone any greater access to the workforce, and certainly an employer would be looking at the issues of citizenship in making those determinations.
SESSIONS:
Would you take action against an employer who says, “No, I prefer to hire someone that came to the country lawfully rather than someone given executive amnesty by the president”? Would Department of Justice take action against them?
LYNCH:
With respect to the — the provision about temporary deferral, I did not read it as providing a legal amnesty, that is, that permanent status there, but a temporary deferral.
With respect to whether or not those individuals would be able to seek redress for employment discrimination, if — if that is the purpose of your question, again, I haven’t studied that legal issue.
I certainly think you raised an important point and would look forward to discussing it with you and using — and relying upon your thoughts and experience as we consider that point.
It's an "I don't know"
It's an "I don't know"
Sessions sounds like a crazy old kook, it's probably wise to not engage in dialogue with him
http://www.c-span.org/video/?323993-1/us-attorney-general-nominee-confirmation-hearing&live
^Sessions starts at 1:20:40, the questioning that led up to the quoted question is at 1:27
Sessions is far from a crank.
Sessions is far from a crank.
Well fooled me
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231394-cdc-director-warns-of-measles-outbreak (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/231394-cdc-director-warns-of-measles-outbreak)
Golly, I wonder where the glut of un-immunized kids is coming from? :dunno: we used to check for this kind of thing back when we had a legal functioning immigration system.
Federal court in Texas has temporarily suspended Barack Obama's illegal illegal alien amnesty pending outcome of litigation. I believe the injunction will be appealed. A small win for the rule of law.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html)
Federal court in Texas has temporarily suspended Barack Obama's illegal illegal alien amnesty pending outcome of litigation. I believe the injunction will be appealed. A small win for the rule of law.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150217/us--immigration_lawsuit-c50009fcae.html)
The always correct Texas judicial system in action.
Activist judges :angry:
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/)
The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.
So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.
Who appointed the other two?
Who appointed the other two?
Clinton, W. Bush
I think what he is doing is illegal. It's in the best interest of the country, though.Objectively so? If its illegal and there is any grey area then it is a terrible precedent.
I think what he is doing is illegal. It's in the best interest of the country, though.Objectively so? If its illegal and there is any grey area then it is a terrible precedent.
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
Not what i meant...Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
Killing Indians is illegal, though. What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
Killing Indians is illegal, though. What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
Not what i meant...Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
Killing Indians is illegal, though. What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
I see where you are coming from but people aren't gonna stop coming to this country anytime soon. Lines will be blurred and rules will change throughout this countries lifetime.Not what i meant...Immigration is what this country was built on so why make it illegal.
Killing Indians is illegal, though. What are your thoughts on that, if you apply the same logic?
Oh, I thought you meant that if a thing is a thing that helped to create America, then it should not be illegal. I just pointed out one example that refutes that rule, so now I think that rule is not valid. How does it feel to make an invalid statement?
Immigration is not illegal, though. Only illegal immigration is illegal.
Immigration is not illegal, though. Only illegal immigration is illegal.
The effect of this is that just about all of our immigration is illegal.
As of January 2012, an estimated 13.3 million green-card holders lived in the United States, including an estimated 8.8 million eligible to become U.S. citizens.
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/)
The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.
So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.
This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless. The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/)
The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.
So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.
This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless. The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.
Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2Fcheesy.gif&hash=26f739b1594d4aa6d68b18c154a9eca5cc099a45)Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/)
The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.
So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.
This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless. The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.
Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=)
They think they have a stronger case if they choose not to appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. This is not a forfeit, but rather a punt. It would seem that they want this to peek during the run up to the 2016 elections.
Huge victory today for the rule of law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/)
The majority 2-1 opinion effectively (but not explictly) holds that the POTUS can't just unilaterally exempt millions of people from immigration laws and call it "prosecutorial discretion." The dissenting judge, Stephen Higginson, is - of course - an Obama appointee.
So, the injunction stays in place. The administration will continue to fight in the hopes of finally landing a panel with a majority of Democrat-appointed judges who will disregard the Constitution.
This one was going to SCOTUS, regardless. The lower court actions (including this one) are a real snoozefest.
Obama will not take the case the Supremes. Because he has no case.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?referrer=)
They think they have a stronger case if they choose not to appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction. This is not a forfeit, but rather a punt. It would seem that they want this to peek during the run up to the 2016 elections.
Immigration is not illegal, though. Only illegal immigration is illegal.
The effect of this is that just about all of our immigration is illegal.
That's a pretty dumb thing to say.QuoteAs of January 2012, an estimated 13.3 million green-card holders lived in the United States, including an estimated 8.8 million eligible to become U.S. citizens.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents)
And, we also currently grant about 100,000 H1B visas annually. These H1B visas are primarily utilized by companies to ship in cheap labor to replace American tech workers. Here's a delightful recent example from Di$ney World.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it-outsourcing/fury-rises-at-disney-over-use-of-foreign-workers.html (http://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it-outsourcing/fury-rises-at-disney-over-use-of-foreign-workers.html)
We have a functioning, legal immigration system, and it could definitely use an overhaul. But what we don't need is to completely disregard our immigration laws and open the flood gates to poor, unskilled migrants to a country that is hemorrhaging jobs during the "Obama recovery."
how much does ksuw hate mexicans? a lot is the answer
Well, maybe we should stop letting companies like Di$ney bring people in legally to work jobs Americans actually want to work and support the hard working salt-of-the earth people coming here illegally instead.
They obviously feel they have justification, but we don't even know what their "case" is since oral arguments in the 5th won't happen until June. This motion was only focused on a stay of the injunction, I thought.
Well, maybe we should stop letting companies like Di$ney bring people in legally to work jobs Americans actually want to work and support the hard working salt-of-the earth people coming here illegally instead.
The H1B visa program needs serious reform, but that doesn't mean illegal immigration is better. The same big business, corporate welfare special interests support both. They'll take cheap labor however they can get it, Americans be damned.
I look at it more as a judicial gamble, and one which they could lose and still politically win.
We should probably get rid of the EITC.
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.
In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.
The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.
“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.
The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.
“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.
I love good, smart, common sense judges. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/)QuoteA federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.
In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.
The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.
“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.
The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.
“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.
Uh yeah, because that's exactly the point of Obama's attempted executive amnesty - to change immigration law. Which is, you know, unconstitutional (as long as the case is being heard by a non-liberal idealogue judge).
That's true dax
That's true dax
still just a paper
The Pew Research Center found that slightly more than 1 million Mexicans and their families, including American-born children, left the U.S. for Mexico from 2009 to 2014. During the same five years, 870,000 Mexicans came to the U.S., resulting in a net flow to Mexico of 140,000.
Further supports my hypothesis that if you make the US really shitty for illegals, they'll leave.
I guess thanks to B.O. for inadvertently testing that hypothesis. Sad he had to take down the entire lower class and a good piece of the middle class with it.
Mitt Romney :billdance:
Further supports my hypothesis that if you make the US really shitty for illegals, they'll leave.
I guess thanks to B.O. for inadvertently testing that hypothesis. Sad he had to take down the entire lower class and a good piece of the middle class with it.
i thought illegals came here and immediately were given ipads and free healthcare and snizz?
Donald Trump’s noisy complaints that immigration is out of control are literally true. Nobody is making conscious decisions about who is wanted and who is not, about how much immigration to accept and what kind to prioritize—not even for the portion of U.S. migration conducted according to law, much less for the larger portion that is not.
Nor is there much understanding of what has happened after it has happened. A simple question like, “How many immigrants are in prison?” turns out to be extraordinarily hard to answer. Poor information invites excessive fears, which are then answered with false assurances and angry accusations.
Nervous about Syrian refugees in the wake of the Paris massacre? How dare you! Would you turn away Jews fleeing Hitler? Oh, you think that analogy is hyperbolic? Tell it to the mayor of New York City.
This frequent invocation of the refugee trauma of the 1930s shuts down all discussion of anything that has happened since. Since 1991, the United States has accepted more than 100,000 Somali refugees. Britain accepted 100,000 as well. Some 50,000 Somali refugees were resettled in Canada; some 40,000 in Sweden; smaller communities were settled in the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark.
How’s that going?
- Minnesota is home to America’s largest Somali community, 33,000 people. The unemployment rate for Somali Minnesotans in 2015 was triple the state average, 21 percent. As of 2014, about 5,950 of the state’s Somali population received cash assistance; 17,000 receive food assistance as of 2014.
- A close study of Somali refugees by the government of Maine (home to the nation’s second-largest Somali community) found that fewer than half of the working-age population had worked at any time in the five years from 2001 through 2006.
- The U.S. unemployment rate of 20+ percent still represents a huge improvement over rates in Europe. Only about 40 percent of working-age Somali men in Norway are employed. In the Swedish city of Malmo, home to one of the largest Somali communities in Europe, only 20 percent work.
- Somalis have so much difficulty finding work in the developed world because their skills badly mismatch local labor needs. Only about 18 percent of boys and 15 percent of girls attend even primary school in Somalia. UNICEF has given up trying to measure literacy rates. Much of the U.S. refugee population is descended from people held as slaves in Somalia, who accordingly lack any family tradition of education. Their children then flounder in Western schools, baffled by the norms and expectations they encounter there. In the U.K., Somali students pass the standard age 16 high school exams at a rate less than half that of Nigerian immigrant students.
- Struggling with the transition from semi-nomadic-herder society to postindustrial urban life, young Somalis in the West are tempted by criminal activity. Danish Somalis are 10 times more likely to be committed of a serious offense than native-born Danes. At least 29 young Canadian Somalis were murdered in drug-trafficking-related deaths between 2005 and 2010. In July 2012, Richard Stanek, sheriff of the county that encompasses Minneapolis-St. Paul, testified to Congress about the rising danger of American Somali gangs.
- Other young Somalis turn to political and religious violence. An estimated 50 American Somalis returned to fight for al Shabab, committing some of the most heinous acts of that insurgency. One carried out a suicide bombing that killed 24 people in 2009. Al Shabab claimed three American Somalis took part in the attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall in 2013 that killed at least 67 people. Al Shabab is now intensely recruiting American Somalis to undertake terror missions inside the United States.
If it's true that 85% of the Somali refugees didn't attend primary school, a 20% unemployment rate seems like a huge success.Kansas' school budget issue may have found a solution.
Comparing Europe's immigration problem to ours is ridiculous.
If it's true that 85% of the Somali refugees didn't attend primary school, a 20% unemployment rate seems like a huge success.
Comparing Europe's immigration problem to ours is ridiculous.
The Pope is bringing refugees into the Vatican. I love the Pope! :love:
The Pope is bringing refugees into the Vatican. I love the Pope! :love:
i hope none of them are little boys
I think that one went over buckets head
I think that one went over buckets head
No, I get it. However, I prefer to focus on the fact that our Christian nation wants to block Muslim refugees from entering while the Pope chooses to harbor them. Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29, Luke 6:31, and Matthew 7:12. Were Matthew and Luke roommates?
What's your point?
What's your point?
There are millions of Syrian refugees, letting in 12 is nothing more than show.
Who gives a crap what religion it is. The majority of Muslims don't want to blow stuff up. Read up on other religions
You guys are confusing. Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes? What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?
You guys are confusing. Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes? What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?
A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.
You guys are confusing. Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes? What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?
A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.
Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.
It will be interesting to see if this actually reduces the flow or not.
It will also be interesting to see if this effects cuba by keeping more of their dissatisfied citizens in country. Especially now that Castro is dead and lil bro castro is like 80.
So Israel, Cuban asylum seekers, who else gets the middle finger this last week of President Shithead's term?Hope it's the polish
Aborted babies
You guys are confusing. Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes? What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?
A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.
Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.
Yes. You don't see a lot of Cuban terrorists running around.
You guys are confusing. Are you pro or anti ppl running from their country to ours without following the proper legal processes? What is the difference between 90 miles of ocean and several miles of desert with a fence?
A communist government that will imprison/torture/murder you upon return, for starters. We've had this special policy for Cuba for decades, and it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Obama just said "eff you, Miami" in the last week of his presidency, purely out of spite.
Good thing they aren't Muslim, I guess.
Yes. You don't see a lot of Cuban terrorists running around.
lol
No by all means, continue comparing that Cuban terrorism problem to Muslims. :bwpopcorn:
No by all means, continue comparing that Cuban terrorism problem to Muslims. :bwpopcorn:Muslims being imported don't want to be here. They want to Kill evil satan Americans once here. Cubans become good citizens, and have babies that run for President.
Good point dax, muzzies are probably safe this week
KSUW, do you state things as fact that you have no clue about this often in your life away from gE?
the cuban exiles have a long history of basically having a CIA trained hit squad running around Miami setting off car bombs, blowing up planes, blowing up bars and restaurants and committing murder in broad daylight with impunity. But carry on with your transparent attempts to change the subject dax. Not your best effort.
I think he just realized Cubans are generally conservative, at least the ones trying to escape communism.
What's this about cuban cia operatives? Fascinating
I think he just realized Cubans are generally conservative, at least the ones trying to escape communism.
First gen Mexicans are usually as well, though.
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
California public schools? :dunno:
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
California public schools? :dunno:
I really appreciated how far KK rolled with the Cubans trained by the CIA decades ago equals Islamic Terrorism in the homeland of today (some of whom were likely trained by the CIA or U.S. proxies).
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
California public schools? :dunno:
Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
California public schools? :dunno:
Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.
Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.
Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.
According to Pew reasearch, illegal Mexicans are leaving america, so this problem should work itself out.LOL at people who think that illegal = Mexican. You poor sheltered human being. Expired visas anyone?
Dax is very angry :frown:
Dax is very angry :frown:
Dax is very angry :frown:
It's the only thing he has anymore to run on, that an massively simplifying everything and imbibing on schadenfreude. Oh well, keep on hating dax.
I wonder what could possibly be causing 2nd gen Mexicans to be more liberal. :dunno:
California public schools? :dunno:
Yeah, probably. I doubt it's the republican party demonizing their parents for following the American dream. Probably the schools.
Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.
Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.
It's hilarious that you actually believe that.
So you think if we drop school lunch for poor people, the Mexicans will just go home?
So you think if we drop school lunch for poor people, the Mexicans will just go home?
Oh crap, KSU-Dub's busting out "facts" again. Quick, get behind this straw shield!
Hmmm. I guess relying upon the government to feed, cloth, doctor and otherwise care for your children certainly is a dream of many immigrants to America. I'm not sure that's what the American Dream is supposed to mean.
Mexican immigrants "become more liberal" in the second generation because that's when they can vote (legally). It's not like they cross the border as conservatives. Many have a good work ethic but they are also coming because of the generous welfare. You can make money, send it home, and rely on Uncle Sam to cover your kids here.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdatacentral.ksde.org%2FReserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd%3FReportSession%3D4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m%26amp%3BCulture%3D1033%26amp%3BCultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BUICulture%3D1033%26amp%3BUICultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BReportStack%3D1%26amp%3BControlID%3D0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b%26amp%3BOpType%3DReportImage%26amp%3BIterationId%3D19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6%26amp%3BStreamID%3DM_8_1&hash=b9a3f410e5e4cc629524fe4078078233d2624e8f)
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage
There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
ESL /= illegal, tho. You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income. How many illegals are doing that?
ESL /= illegal, tho. You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income. How many illegals are doing that?
A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."
ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.
According to Pew reasearch, illegal Mexicans are leaving america, so this problem should work itself out.LOL at people who think that illegal = Mexican. You poor sheltered human being. Expired visas anyone?
Mr. Taco Trucks on every corner is the prototype of the Trump Latino enthusiast, you really want to cast your lot with THAT guy?
VERY few immigrants come to the USA thinking it's the land of handouts. Ironically, despite anti-immigrant fear-mongering, immigrants are the ones keeping the TRUE American Dream of hard work and a better tomorrow alive. It's kind of inherent in the country's DNA. If we lower in-migration to the USA, our country dies (because, you know, demographics). If you ever want to come see the American Dream alive and well, go to an immigrant enclave and you'll marvel at the entrepreneurship, hard work, and optimism.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdatacentral.ksde.org%2FReserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd%3FReportSession%3D4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m%26amp%3BCulture%3D1033%26amp%3BCultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BUICulture%3D1033%26amp%3BUICultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BReportStack%3D1%26amp%3BControlID%3D0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b%26amp%3BOpType%3DReportImage%26amp%3BIterationId%3D19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6%26amp%3BStreamID%3DM_8_1&hash=b9a3f410e5e4cc629524fe4078078233d2624e8f)
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage
There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdatacentral.ksde.org%2FReserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd%3FReportSession%3D4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m%26amp%3BCulture%3D1033%26amp%3BCultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BUICulture%3D1033%26amp%3BUICultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BReportStack%3D1%26amp%3BControlID%3D0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b%26amp%3BOpType%3DReportImage%26amp%3BIterationId%3D19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6%26amp%3BStreamID%3DM_8_1&hash=b9a3f410e5e4cc629524fe4078078233d2624e8f)
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage
There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.
So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdatacentral.ksde.org%2FReserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd%3FReportSession%3D4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m%26amp%3BCulture%3D1033%26amp%3BCultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BUICulture%3D1033%26amp%3BUICultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BReportStack%3D1%26amp%3BControlID%3D0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b%26amp%3BOpType%3DReportImage%26amp%3BIterationId%3D19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6%26amp%3BStreamID%3DM_8_1&hash=b9a3f410e5e4cc629524fe4078078233d2624e8f)
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage
There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.
So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.
Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.
ESL /= illegal, tho. You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income. How many illegals are doing that?
A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."
ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.
ESL /= illegal, tho. You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income. How many illegals are doing that?
A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."
ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.
You realize that this would have been used as the main tool for deportation if this was the case, right? I mean, it is basically illegals raising their hand and asking to be deported. Why even have ICE if you can just cross check the free lunch program monthly?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdatacentral.ksde.org%2FReserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd%3FReportSession%3D4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m%26amp%3BCulture%3D1033%26amp%3BCultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BUICulture%3D1033%26amp%3BUICultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BReportStack%3D1%26amp%3BControlID%3D0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b%26amp%3BOpType%3DReportImage%26amp%3BIterationId%3D19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6%26amp%3BStreamID%3DM_8_1&hash=b9a3f410e5e4cc629524fe4078078233d2624e8f)
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage
There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.
So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.
Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.
Where is your argument that they are not? Are you claiming that a conservative would never take advantage of government money?
You just said in your last post that illegal immigrants can legally get free lunch for their kids.
I would argue that most Latino Immigrants are conservative, especially as it relates to social issues. They however have generally voted democrat due to Republicans largely blaming of all of societies problems on them and working diligently to limit paths to citizenship.
:th_twocents:
You just said in your last post that illegal immigrants can legally get free lunch for their kids.
They're here illegally. :facepalm: I give up. This is pointless.
That is not relevant. What is, is that you have to apply and qualify for the lunch program, meaning you are giving a govt institution your info. That list, if your claims are true, would be a great tool to look through for deportations. Why is that not happening?ESL /= illegal, tho. You have to qualify for free lunch, meaning that you have to register with the govt and prove low income. How many illegals are doing that?
A ton and you're delusional if you believe otherwise. I know several teachers including family members. They all know what's going on, though they prefer the term "undocumented."
ESL does not necessarily mean illegal, and of course not all ESL students are illegal (or are children of illegals), but it is the closest comparison we can make in terms of data the government actually collects.
You realize that this would have been used as the main tool for deportation if this was the case, right? I mean, it is basically illegals raising their hand and asking to be deported. Why even have ICE if you can just cross check the free lunch program monthly?
You don't seem to be aware that you do not have to prove legal status to attend public school or be eligible for subsidized school meals. Might want to Google that.
That is not relevant. What is, is that you have to apply and qualify for the lunch program, meaning you are giving a govt institution your info. That list, if your claims are true, would be a great tool to look through for deportations. Why is that not happening?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdatacentral.ksde.org%2FReserved.ReportViewerWebControl.axd%3FReportSession%3D4alau5nb2menshi2wx4raz2m%26amp%3BCulture%3D1033%26amp%3BCultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BUICulture%3D1033%26amp%3BUICultureOverrides%3DTrue%26amp%3BReportStack%3D1%26amp%3BControlID%3D0b25239f0c9a47fda741dae62283491b%26amp%3BOpType%3DReportImage%26amp%3BIterationId%3D19fbb217fc2f42dbaf76873f74c443f6%26amp%3BStreamID%3DM_8_1&hash=b9a3f410e5e4cc629524fe4078078233d2624e8f)
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/kansas/hispanic-or-latino-population-percentage
There would be a pretty strong correlation between lunch subsidies and Mexicans if southeast Kansas weren't so poor.
Just because other people also use school lunch subsidies does not negate the strong correlation between non-English speakers (by and large first gen immigrants) and lunch subsidies. I can't believe you're even debating this. It is simply undeniable that illegal immigrants are heavily reliant on public services. That is the only point I was making and you just sound silly to argue otherwise.
So illegal immigrants are poor? I never would have guessed that.
Ok, so sounds like you've conceded the point that illegal immigrants, and particularly their children, are heavily reliant on public welfare. We're making progress. Now we can circle back to your idiotic arguments that illegal immigrants are really conservative and just trying to "live the American Dream" that kicked this all off.
Where is your argument that they are not? Are you claiming that a conservative would never take advantage of government money?
The first month of the Trump administration has already changed the direction of the immigration debate, with many more changes coming soon. So far, executive orders and deportations dominate the discussion. But the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about.
Changes in social policy do not make everyone better off, and immigration policy is no exception. I am a refugee, having fled Cuba as a child in 1962. Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously.
But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being. There are winners and losers, and we will need to choose among difficult options. The improved lives of the immigrants come at a price. How much of a price are the American people willing to pay, and exactly who will pay it?
This tension permeates the debate over immigration’s effect on the labor market. Those who want more immigration claim that immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans do not want to do. But we all know that the price of gas goes down when the supply of oil goes up. The laws of supply and demand do not evaporate when we talk about the price of labor rather than the price of gas. By now, the well-documented abuses of the H-1B program, such as the Disney workers who had to train their foreign-born replacements, should have obliterated the notion that immigration does not harm competing native workers.
Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.
But somebody’s lower wage is somebody else’s higher profit. The increase in the profitability of many employers enlarged the economic pie accruing to the entire native population by about $50 billion. So, as proponents of more immigration point out, immigration can increase the aggregate wealth of Americans. But they don’t point out the trade-off involved: Workers in jobs sought by immigrants lose out.
They also don’t point out that low-skill immigration has a side effect that reduces that $50 billion increase in wealth. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.
Even the most conservative estimate of the fiscal shortfall wipes out much of the $50 billion increase in native wealth. Remarkably, the size of the native economic pie did not change much after immigration increased the number of workers by more than 15 percent. But the split of the pie certainly changed, giving far less to workers and much more to employers.
The immigration debate will also have to address the long-term impact on American society, raising the freighted issue of immigrant assimilation. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which the economic status of immigrants improves over time. In the 1970s, the typical immigrant could expect a substantial improvement relative to natives over his or her lifetime. Today, the economic progress of the typical immigrant is much more stagnant.
Part of the slowdown is related to the growth of ethnic enclaves. New immigrants who find few ethnic compatriots get value from acquiring skills that allow more social and economic exchanges, such as becoming proficient in English. But new immigrants who find a large and welcoming community of their countrymen have less need to acquire those skills; they already have a large audience that values whatever they brought with them. Put bluntly, mass migration discourages assimilation.
The trade-offs become even more difficult when we think about the long-term integration of the children and grandchildren of today’s immigrants. Many look back at the melting pot in 20th-century America and assume that history will repeat itself. That’s probably wishful thinking. That melting pot operated in a particular economic, social and political context, and it is doubtful that those conditions can be reproduced today.
Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, creating a private-sector safety net for the immigrants and their descendants. Does anyone seriously believe that the jobs employing low-skill immigrants today will offer the same economic mobility that unionized manufacturing jobs provided?
Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”
Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-need.html?_r=0)
By George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.QuoteThe first month of the Trump administration has already changed the direction of the immigration debate, with many more changes coming soon. So far, executive orders and deportations dominate the discussion. But the fight over how many refugees to admit or how best to vet those refugees obscures what the debate is really about.
Changes in social policy do not make everyone better off, and immigration policy is no exception. I am a refugee, having fled Cuba as a child in 1962. Not only do I have great sympathy for the immigrant’s desire to build a better life, I am also living proof that immigration policy can benefit some people enormously.
But I am also an economist, and am very much aware of the many trade-offs involved. Inevitably, immigration does not improve everyone’s well-being. There are winners and losers, and we will need to choose among difficult options. The improved lives of the immigrants come at a price. How much of a price are the American people willing to pay, and exactly who will pay it?
This tension permeates the debate over immigration’s effect on the labor market. Those who want more immigration claim that immigrants do jobs that native-born Americans do not want to do. But we all know that the price of gas goes down when the supply of oil goes up. The laws of supply and demand do not evaporate when we talk about the price of labor rather than the price of gas. By now, the well-documented abuses of the H-1B program, such as the Disney workers who had to train their foreign-born replacements, should have obliterated the notion that immigration does not harm competing native workers.
Over the past 30 years, a large fraction of immigrants, nearly a third, were high school dropouts, so the incumbent low-skill work force formed the core group of Americans who paid the price for the influx of millions of workers. Their wages fell as much as 6 percent. Those low-skill Americans included many native-born blacks and Hispanics, as well as earlier waves of immigrants.
But somebody’s lower wage is somebody else’s higher profit. The increase in the profitability of many employers enlarged the economic pie accruing to the entire native population by about $50 billion. So, as proponents of more immigration point out, immigration can increase the aggregate wealth of Americans. But they don’t point out the trade-off involved: Workers in jobs sought by immigrants lose out.
They also don’t point out that low-skill immigration has a side effect that reduces that $50 billion increase in wealth. The National Academy of Sciences recently estimated the impact of immigration on government budgets. On a year-to-year basis, immigrant families, mostly because of their relatively low incomes and higher frequency of participating in government programs like subsidized health care, are a fiscal burden. A comparison of taxes paid and government spending on these families showed that immigrants created an annual fiscal shortfall of $43 billion to $299 billion.
Even the most conservative estimate of the fiscal shortfall wipes out much of the $50 billion increase in native wealth. Remarkably, the size of the native economic pie did not change much after immigration increased the number of workers by more than 15 percent. But the split of the pie certainly changed, giving far less to workers and much more to employers.
The immigration debate will also have to address the long-term impact on American society, raising the freighted issue of immigrant assimilation. In recent decades, there has been a noticeable slowdown in the rate at which the economic status of immigrants improves over time. In the 1970s, the typical immigrant could expect a substantial improvement relative to natives over his or her lifetime. Today, the economic progress of the typical immigrant is much more stagnant.
Part of the slowdown is related to the growth of ethnic enclaves. New immigrants who find few ethnic compatriots get value from acquiring skills that allow more social and economic exchanges, such as becoming proficient in English. But new immigrants who find a large and welcoming community of their countrymen have less need to acquire those skills; they already have a large audience that values whatever they brought with them. Put bluntly, mass migration discourages assimilation.
The trade-offs become even more difficult when we think about the long-term integration of the children and grandchildren of today’s immigrants. Many look back at the melting pot in 20th-century America and assume that history will repeat itself. That’s probably wishful thinking. That melting pot operated in a particular economic, social and political context, and it is doubtful that those conditions can be reproduced today.
Many of the Ellis Island-era immigrants got jobs in manufacturing; Ford’s work force was 75 percent foreign-born in 1914. Those manufacturing jobs evolved into well-paid union jobs, creating a private-sector safety net for the immigrants and their descendants. Does anyone seriously believe that the jobs employing low-skill immigrants today will offer the same economic mobility that unionized manufacturing jobs provided?
Similarly, the ideological climate that encouraged assimilation back then, neatly encapsulated by our motto “E pluribus unum” (Out of many, one), is dead and gone. A recent University of California directive shows the radical shift. The university’s employees were advised to avoid using phrases that can lead to “microaggressions” toward students and one another. One example is the statement “America is a melting pot,” which apparently sends a message to the recipient that they have to “assimilate to the dominant culture.”
Europe is already confronting the difficulties produced by the presence of unassimilated populations. If nothing else, the European experience shows that there is no universal law that guarantees integration even after a few generations. We, too, will need to confront the trade-off between short-term economic gains and the long-term costs of a large, unassimilated minority.
The op-ed goes on to suggest a number of sensible immigration reforms.
I genuinely had no idea there were people who believed illegal immigration resulted in a net positive economically. That's lol levels of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
“I think he saw children—Muslim children—dying everywhere, and wanted revenge. He saw the explosives America drops on children in Syria, and he wanted revenge,” she said. “Whether he got that is between him and God.”
Hillary and Barrack's regime change(s) are the gifts that just keep on giving.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/02/trump-announces-proposed-change-to-legal-immigration-policy-live-blog.amp.html
I like this green card proposal. Trump does good occasionally. Preference will be given to immigrants who speak English, can support their family, and have skills we need. Good job.
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor. We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers. There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor. We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers. There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.
In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor. We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers. There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.
In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?
The "skills we need" include a lot of manual labor. We depend on cheap labor to make food and other products cheap for consumers. There are instances in the U.S. where a crackdown on illegal immigration was pretty devastating to the local economy because it resulted in a bunch of vacant jobs nobody was willing to take.
In these instances the theory goes that the job creators would have to raise wages in order to attract workers who were legal to hire. When this has happened in the past, do these businesses just decide to fail? Or do they just move their business somewhere people are willing to work for next to nothing?
A lot of them have no choice but to fail. Consumers will not pay the price that comes with the increased cost of production. Also, the story I'm talking about is on farms where people simply aren't willing to do like 10 hours worth of labor to harvest. It's not an issue of a fair wage.
A heavily redacted cache of emails, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by students at Vanderbilt University Law School and published exclusively by The Intercept, reveals how in the early days of Donald Trump’s presidency, ICE agents in Austin scrambled — and largely failed — to engineer a narrative that would substantiate the administration’s claims that the raids were motivated by public safety concerns. Instead, the emails detail the evolution of ICE’s public statements once it became obvious that the Trump administration’s narrative was not true.