The imbeciles writing the Border bill snuck this beauty into the text: “ALIENS from NONCONTIGUOUS countries SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF ALIENS ENCOUNTERED.” So Chinese, Somali, Yemeni, Russian, Iranian nationals encountered at the border simply won’t be counted???!… pic.twitter.com/TxYupG6Oob
— 🇺🇸 Kyle Bass 🇹🇼 (@Jkylebass) February 6, 2024
Zippergate said:The imbeciles writing the Border bill snuck this beauty into the text: “ALIENS from NONCONTIGUOUS countries SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE SUM OF ALIENS ENCOUNTERED.” So Chinese, Somali, Yemeni, Russian, Iranian nationals encountered at the border simply won’t be counted???!… pic.twitter.com/TxYupG6Oob
— 🇺🇸 Kyle Bass 🇹🇼 (@Jkylebass) February 6, 2024
concordtom said:
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.
I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.
The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.
This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.
But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.
It's cruel and economically weak.
oski003 said:concordtom said:
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.
I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.
The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.
This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.
But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.
It's cruel and economically weak.
Close the border. Allow a moderate amount of refugees in, based on checks done outside our border. Anyone already here has a year to learn basic English, civics, and American history and can them become a citizen. At that time, anyone who fails to do so or does not want to be a citizen should be deported.
concordtom said:oski003 said:concordtom said:
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.
I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.
The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.
This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.
But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.
It's cruel and economically weak.
Close the border. Allow a moderate amount of refugees in, based on checks done outside our border. Anyone already here has a year to learn basic English, civics, and American history and can them become a citizen. At that time, anyone who fails to do so or does not want to be a citizen should be deported.
Wow. Im surprised.
I like this, except for your requirement to learn English. Why would you place that on your list - I think that's absurd and only based in the xenophobia I mentioned.
1. Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language?
2. Some are too old to do so. Others may have other impediments to it.
3. Do you believe non English speaking is a threat to you, to America, the economic or social prosperity?
By the way, your proposal would NEVER be accepted by the GOP.
Fair enough, Tom. But we're not in the classroom. Look at what mass migration does in reality. In a dysfunctional state like California, what happens to housing, social services, crime, education, etc? California has the world's most naturally endowed, productive economy the world has ever seen. It has second highest per capita revenue in the country. So why is it in such bad shape, with corporations and rich people leaving left and right? Why is education in such an abysmal state? It's not all the fault of mass migration, but much of it is.concordtom said:
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.
I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.
The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.
This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.
But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.
It's cruel and economically weak.
You got it. https://t.co/GOea1AC2oy
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 6, 2024
Zippergate said:Fair enough, Tom. But we're not in the classroom. Look at what mass migration does in reality. In a dysfunctional state like California, what happens to housing, social services, crime, education, etc? California has the world's most naturally endowed, productive economy the world has ever seen. It has second highest per capita revenue in the country. So why is it in such bad shape, with corporations and rich people leaving left and right? Why is education in such an abysmal state? It's not all the fault of mass migration, but much of it is.concordtom said:
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.
I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.
The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.
This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.
But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.
It's cruel and economically weak.
I don't care about studies that say mass migration adds to the economy, they're obviously biased. Hordes of uneducated, unproductive people don't add to average economic output nor do they add to the average quality of life. They may add to the nominal size of the economy but they are a net drain and have an overall negative impact, particularly to the lower end of the economic spectrum. This does not mean that we shouldn't take in some of these people for various reasons, but we should stop kidding ourselves that they are making the country better. Quite the contrary, given the completely unsustainable fiscal situation, they are an unwelcome added burden at a time when we can't even afford the commitments the government has already made.
Of course, the vast majority who come just want a better life. I harbor no ill will toward them and I certainly regret the derogatory statements Trump has made about them. But is that really the litmus test for whether they should be allowed in? There are five billion people who could benefit from coming to the US. Should we allow them all in? It's not that I hate them, it's that I care more about the people already in this country. How about we take care of Americans first? Adults sometimes must make difficult, adult decisions. Our leaders need to stop acting like spoiled children. A pox on both the parties who have sold us out to special interest and their own political gain.
Close the border.
dajo9 said:
The humiliation of gay hating Republican House Speaker continues as his bill to impeach Mayorkas fails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/house-republicans-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas-impeachment_n_65c278a0e4b0dbc806ae62c2
And you don't care to debate it as in the classroom with theory because you just seem to KNOW, is that right?concordtom said:Zippergate said:Fair enough, Tom. But we're not in the classroom. Look at what mass migration does in reality. In a dysfunctional state like California, what happens to housing, social services, crime, education, etc? California has the world's most naturally endowed, productive economy the world has ever seen. It has second highest per capita revenue in the country. So why is it in such bad shape, with corporations and rich people leaving left and right? Why is education in such an abysmal state? It's not all the fault of mass migration, but much of it is.concordtom said:
The level of instinctive fear of foreigners is astonishing.
I was an international affairs major because I was attracted to learning different languages, cultures, lives.
The xenophobic American way is not just unattractive, but economically unfounded. As an international economics concentration major, we examined international trade, comparative advantages of each nation, and market efficiency disturbances (negative externalities) such as tariffs, quotas, subsidies, regulations, etc.
And I find that the focus on this horas of "OMG, illegals are coming to get us" is so mis-founded.
This is not a call on my part for unrestrained borders.
But there are millions here as a drain on the system because they are not legal, so can't work to add to the GDP, and can't pay taxes to support all of us.
It's cruel and economically weak.
I don't care about studies that say mass migration adds to the economy, they're obviously biased. Hordes of uneducated, unproductive people don't add to average economic output nor do they add to the average quality of life. They may add to the nominal size of the economy but they are a net drain and have an overall negative impact, particularly to the lower end of the economic spectrum. This does not mean that we shouldn't take in some of these people for various reasons, but we should stop kidding ourselves that they are making the country better. Quite the contrary, given the completely unsustainable fiscal situation, they are an unwelcome added burden at a time when we can't even afford the commitments the government has already made.
Of course, the vast majority who come just want a better life. I harbor no ill will toward them and I certainly regret the derogatory statements Trump has made about them. But is that really the litmus test for whether they should be allowed in? There are five billion people who could benefit from coming to the US. Should we allow them all in? It's not that I hate them, it's that I care more about the people already in this country. How about we take care of Americans first? Adults sometimes must make difficult, adult decisions. Our leaders need to stop acting like spoiled children. A pox on both the parties who have sold us out to special interest and their own political gain.
Close the border.
Okay, well, it seems that you may have stated some concessions or softened your tone, but then you make assertions and are absolutist right back where you started.
You claim that California is a failing state because of immigrants?
You say they don't add to the economy?
That schools are bad because of them?
That they are a drain on social services?
Etc
And you don't care to debate it as in the classroom with theory because you just seem to KNOW, is that right?
Well, it seems then that there's not much to discuss with you. Because you are rigid, fixed, to your belief about it.
I was thinking about all the positive factors immigrants provide for you which you don't recognize, and I was thinking of that film…
What is the mockumentary "a day without a Mexican"?
Mockumentary suggests what would happen in California if all the state's Latino residents were to mysteriously disappear.
And yet, that wouldn't be my final solution.
I think if we as Americans were to try and solve the problems of our society or of the world, we need to begin with a heart and a willingness to say we don't know, don't have all the answers.
I find it frustrating to read your posts because your attitude reflects neither.
Okay, well, that's my initial reaction.
I'm just deflated by your post.
I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.movielover said:
Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.movielover said:
Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.movielover said:
Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.movielover said:
Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
I have to admit that movielover has a point. When I posted above, I was thinking of state educational rankings which I had looked up a few days ago. California was generally in the 20s and Mississippi was 48th or 49th. However, it then occurred to me that movielover had said test scores, so I looked those up. At least over the last few years, California is near the bottom and Mississippi is higher. I doubt that's been true for long. Still, by his chosen metric, movielover was more right than I was in this case. I went back to edit my post, but Bearister had already quoted it, so it was too late to remove it.oski003 said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:I thought this turd of a statement deserved a spotlight all to itself.movielover said:
Our test scores have been below Mississippi for decades. #50?
Decades is an exaggeration. California, despite being much wealthier, has problems with reading and English proficiency.
https://napavalleyregister.com/opinion/columnists/community-voices-california-needs-to-look-to-mississippi-to-help-younger-students-really/article_9d89eb7a-1f63-11ee-b73c-17580980b63e.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/edsource.org/2019/reading-scores-drop-in-california-most-states-in-much-watched-national-test/619237%3famp=1
https://www.google.com/amp/s/edsource.org/2023/flat-test-scores-leave-california-far-behind-pre-covid-levels-of-achievement/698895%3famp=1
concordtom said:
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.
The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.
About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.
While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.
I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.
I'm reminded of the line from Blazing Saddles which was spoken grudgingly:concordtom said:
Reading through the anti-immigrant stances on these pages, it's amazing America was able to rise up and become the economic engine it did in the 1900's, what with all the non-English speaking, uneducated poor masses who flowed through Ellis Island at the turn of the century.
Of course, there were phobic sentiments back then, too.
calbear93 said:
As long as Trump is the head of the Republican party and there are disloyal Americans in the House who pledge loyalty to Trump over the country, Republican Party will remain a joker party. Loonies have been considering me a RINO anyway but count me as a conservative Democrat now. Will make it official with change in party affiliation . Killing the border bill by the idiots did it for me. Maybe more former Republicans like me joining and contributing to the Democratic Party will bring some sanity to that party but the Republican Party is currently hopeless and destructive.
oski003 said:concordtom said:
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.
The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.
About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.
While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.
I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.
Apples and Oranges. This doesn't prove your point although you love to pin folks who want to restrict illegal immigration as uncompassionate ignorant racists. The landscape at the end of the 19th Century was much different than what we have today. At that time, they were still giving out land to folks who'd settle west.
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
I'm reminded of the line from Blazing Saddles which was spoken grudgingly:
"OK, we'll take the <Blacks> and <Chinese> but we don't want the Irish!"
concordtom said:oski003 said:concordtom said:
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigrants-learn-english-immigrants-language#:~:text=About%2091%20percent%20of%20immigrants,here%20from%201900%20to%201930.
The ability to speak English is an important part of immigrant assimilation in the United States. In contemporary politics there is a concern that although earlier waves of immigrants learned English, newer cohorts are doing so at lower rates. This brief uses U.S. Census data to answer this concern and show that English language acquisition rates have increased over the past 100 years.
About 91 percent of immigrants in the United States between 1980 and 2010 reportedly spoke English compared with 86 percent who lived here from 1900 to 1930.
While immigrants with different backgrounds are more or less likely to learn English than others, our analysis unambiguously shows that today's immigrants are more likely to learn English than immigrants in the beginning of the last century.
I guess sometimes people just run with their own assumptions, when actually they don't know what they are talking about.
Apples and Oranges. This doesn't prove your point although you love to pin folks who want to restrict illegal immigration as uncompassionate ignorant racists. The landscape at the end of the 19th Century was much different than what we have today. At that time, they were still giving out land to folks who'd settle west.
Hmmm.
I'm going to post this photo for you.
It's from a google search on
"Brooklyn 1900 crowded street"
You see, Brooklyn was packed then. And those ships were aiming right for them.
The truth is, I think, there is still LOTS of room for more people in this country. You just don't like it because it represents change from what you're used to.
I don't want millions more here, either. I like our wide open spaces.
But, you know, so did the Native Americans.
The "it's different this time" excuse expired a while ago.
