Immigration vs. Illegal Immigration Distinction

2,418 Views | 46 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Unit2Sucks
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've noticed the mainstream media stopped making distinctions between legal vs illegal immigration or documented vs. undocumented immigration if you prefer, and makes it confusing to figure out what they're trying to report. I am an immigrant myself and wonder if the discussion applies to me but it takes some time to sift through the talking points to figure out yet again, illegal immigration is the topic at hand.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You are not illegal if you are on the border seeking asylum. You are not illegal if you sneak across the border seeking asylum and are apprehended. That's what our current problem is about.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To many people, it doesn't matter. To many people, the Irish and Italians and Spaniards and ... are not real Americans. To many people, Californians are not real Americans. Don't even ask about what many people think about their next door neighbor.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The thing is, Trump/GOP is right to want to build a wall and limit immigration AND the Dems are right to oppose him/them on the grounds they've taken. We are no longer having rational dialogue on this issue.

To the Dems, I'll ask this: what if a terrible situation occurs in middle America such that every single one of the people there wants to migrate across the border. Can we afford to have 100M new citizens? Or, say something occurs in Asia and 1B Chinese or Indians get on boats and land on our shores. Then what?

You know, this type of scenario was described in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth film. Environmental Refugees. We do not want limitless migration, whether they claim refugee status or not. I think more than 90% of the nation would agree with that. So, then it becomes an issue of how to address that possibility.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party under Trump offers zero ability to have a sane dialogue. It began with the issue of Dreamers. These are people who have grown up in the USA and are citizens despite their legal status. Have a heart and just understand that. Address that first, Dems have been saying. But the racist times of the "right" cannot get there, so there have been no negotiations.

Similarly, the "left" has put their foot down on yielding any points - alienating many on the right into thinking the left is for uncontrolled borders.

We need a new leader in the White House that can break the logjam.
We need a new leader in the Senate that can break the logjam.
We currently have a leader in the House that can broker dialogue.

That's how I see it.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

I've noticed the mainstream media stopped making distinctions between legal vs illegal immigration or documented vs. undocumented immigration if you prefer, and makes it confusing to figure out what they're trying to report. I am an immigrant myself and wonder if the discussion applies to me but it takes some time to sift through the talking points to figure out yet again, illegal immigration is the topic at hand.
This is by design. MSM paints all opposition to immigration as fundamentally about race. That's what their viewers want to consume -- MSM is just trying to meet the demand of its consumers.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

To the Dems, I'll ask this: what if a terrible situation occurs in middle America such that every single one of the people there wants to migrate across the border. Can we afford to have 100M new citizens? Or, say something occurs in Asia and 1B Chinese or Indians get on boats and land on our shores. Then what?
Which Democrats have called for uncontrolled borders? I don't mean left-wing activists, I mean actual Democratic politicians.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

concordtom said:

To the Dems, I'll ask this: what if a terrible situation occurs in middle America such that every single one of the people there wants to migrate across the border. Can we afford to have 100M new citizens? Or, say something occurs in Asia and 1B Chinese or Indians get on boats and land on our shores. Then what?
Which Democrats have called for uncontrolled borders? I don't mean left-wing activists, I mean actual Democratic politicians.
None have.
I was saying that the two sides need to be able to address the other's concerns.
I blame the republicans. They drew the line before the Dems drew the line.
The republicans are not honorable these days, not in negotiating or much less any other way.

We cannot even have a discussion about legal or illegal migration, though we need to, as I was indicating, because our negotiating partners have left the building. So, we just need to vote them all out and figure it out on our own.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

sycasey said:

concordtom said:

To the Dems, I'll ask this: what if a terrible situation occurs in middle America such that every single one of the people there wants to migrate across the border. Can we afford to have 100M new citizens? Or, say something occurs in Asia and 1B Chinese or Indians get on boats and land on our shores. Then what?
Which Democrats have called for uncontrolled borders? I don't mean left-wing activists, I mean actual Democratic politicians.
None have.
I was saying that the two sides need to be able to address the other's concerns.
I blame the republicans. They drew the line before the Dems drew the line.
The republicans are not honorable these days, not in negotiating or much less any other way.

We cannot even have a discussion about legal or illegal migration, though we need to, as I was indicating, because our negotiating partners have left the building. So, we just need to vote them all out and figure it out on our own.

Got it, agreed. The Dems did try to make a deal with Trump for Dreamers, but of course he kept moving the goalposts and going back on his word. Because really, he does not want a deal, he wants to use immigration as a campaign issue.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The non-negotiating behavior has been going on longer than Trump, as I understand it.

McConnell needs to go.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

The non-negotiating behavior has been going on longer than Trump, as I understand it.

McConnell needs to go.
As a consistent Republican strategy, it's been ramping up since at least Newt Gingrich.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SPECULATION ALERT:

Trump thinks immigration is his winning issue for 2020, and he's already targeting old people with the associated scare ads.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/16/18410513/facebook-ads-trump-campaign-immigration-2020

Though I admit it won him the Republican nomination and helped greatly in 2016, I kind of think America is tired of the issue and want to move on to other things.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

SPECULATION ALERT:

Trump thinks immigration is his winning issue for 2020, and he's already targeting old people with the associated scare ads.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/16/18410513/facebook-ads-trump-campaign-immigration-2020

Though I admit it won him the Republican nomination and helped greatly in 2016, I kind of think America is tired of the issue and want to move on to other things.
He also clearly thought it was the winning issue in 2018, when Democrats won a ton of seats and took over the House. Safe to say the results are mixed on this one.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Dems don't have a policy prescription on illegal immigration because it will never be a part of their agenda. They will only engage the issue because they have to in response to the Rep agenda, and they do so by paying lip service to a "desire for reasonable reform". The Rep did this with "repeal and replace". You can tell how sincere a party's support or opposition to something is by how non existent their policy prescriptions actually are.

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Honestly, I just don't care about immigration policy as it doesn't sufficiently impact life. The policies we've had before the Trump years was perfectly adequate and there was no reason to make a change from that. There are a ton of other issues I wish congress would prioritize over immigration.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.

You also pretend you care about data, or are ignorant of basic economic principles of increasing labor supply. When you see data that doesn't support it, you can always fall back on "compassion" . I want an immigration policy that aims to fill the country's labor objectives.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy

Neither of your links here are to an actual study. They are to editorials by politically conservative writers or outlets (one of which is more than 20 years old). Their claims are not well-cited in most cases. I think you can do better than this.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy

Neither of your links here are to an actual study. They are to editorials by politically conservative writers or outlets (one of which is more than 20 years old). Their claims are not well-cited in most cases. I think you can do better than this.
LOL keep pretending you actually care...and pretending to be unaware that they exist in the first place.

Like I said: coward.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy

Neither of your links here are to an actual study. They are to editorials by politically conservative writers or outlets (one of which is more than 20 years old). Their claims are not well-cited in most cases. I think you can do better than this.
LOL keep pretending you actually care...and pretending to be unaware that they exist in the first place.

Like I said: coward.
I will await your further evidence. Until then, I contend that immigration is not a major issue at the moment, except to the extent that the Trump Administration wants to make it one.

This seems like a very emotional issue for you.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:


LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy

Neither of your links here are to an actual study. They are to editorials by politically conservative writers or outlets (one of which is more than 20 years old). Their claims are not well-cited in most cases. I think you can do better than this.
LOL keep pretending you actually care...and pretending to be unaware that they exist in the first place.

Like I said: coward.
I guess the 13th amendment must have been overturned and slavery is legal again now because sycasey is your new owner.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The American public disagrees with you, per polls cited in previous thread. Doesn't mean anybody's right or wrong, but the assertion that unobstructed immigrants gaining entry to the country is not an "issue" is factually incorrect.

DACA is unconstitutional, even according to Obama. Only half of DACA members have HS educations and a quarter are "functionally" illiterate. We are importing poverty by the millions.

But it's not an issue because they're brown, they're not American, and they're poor. Tri fecta. We must divert our attention elsewhere, or else it's obviously racism.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

DACA is unconstitutional, even according to Obama. Only half of DACA members have HS educations and a quarter are "functionally" illiterate. We are importing poverty by the millions.
Receiving DACA status requires either a high school diploma or a GED, or they have to have been in the armed forces or be currently in school. Studies have shown that the implementation of DACA helped lift people out of poverty. It has also survived court challenges, so if it is indeed unconstitutional then our judges must be doing a terrible job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

Show your work. Where are you getting this from?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

DACA is unconstitutional, even according to Obama. Only half of DACA members have HS educations and a quarter are "functionally" illiterate. We are importing poverty by the millions.
You know what, never mind, I think I know where you're getting this from. As far as I can tell, these "facts" have been cited in any number of conservative editorials (the usual suspects: Heritage Foundation, Fox News, Breitbart, Washington Times). Many of them don't actually cite any sources for their claims, relying on the nebulous wording of "studies say." The ones that actually do cite their source mention Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Here's what I could find from him on that:
https://cis.org/Oped/Time-End-DACA

The relevant passage:
Quote:

Even those numbers could exaggerate the level of assimilation. As mentioned above, a high-school diploma has become so commonplace among today's youth (due in large part to watered-down standards) that it is no longer a strong indicator of skills. Similarly, CIS research has shown that immigrants tend to overstate their English ability. When Hispanic immigrants, who make up some 80 to 90 percent of DACA recipients, recently took an objective test of English literacy, 44 percent of those who said they speak English "well" or "very well" actually scored "below basic" a level sometimes described as functional illiteracy. Based on test-takers with the required age and residency, I estimate that perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only "basic" English ability.
Yeah, that's right: "I estimate." He hasn't conducted any study of the actual population of DACA recipients, he's citing a survey of all Hispanic immigrants and then applying that to DACA. In other words, he's making assumptions and pulling numbers out of his ass.

Here's another article that nicely refutes this B.S. point-by-point:
https://ndsmcobserver.com/2018/08/checking-the-facts-for-dreamers/

Anyway, thank you for providing us with this handy, real-time example of how complete bulls*** gets paraded around the right-wing noise machine so much that it gets treated as fact and is willingly believed by people who want to believe it, like you. I just didn't think it would be so easy to completely dismantle the claim with about 10 minutes of Google searching. Get better material.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

DACA is unconstitutional, even according to Obama. Only half of DACA members have HS educations and a quarter are "functionally" illiterate. We are importing poverty by the millions.
Receiving DACA status requires either a high school diploma or a GED, or they have to have been in the armed forces or be currently in school. Studies have shown that the implementation of DACA helped lift people out of poverty. It has also survived court challenges, so if it is indeed unconstitutional then our judges must be doing a terrible job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals

Show your work. Where are you getting this from?


I have volunteered time to help people apply for DACA. And while a small sample size, the kids I've helped have been some of the most intelligent, hardest working people I've ever met.

People are absolutely entitled to their opinions. But if you really care to know what these DACA recipients are actually like, I'd invite you to meet some. Hopefully, USCIS will once again start accepting initial DACA applications. And if that day ever comes, I personally invite you to come with me to help people apply for DACA. And after that, if you still believe these kids are underserving, so be it.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

concordtom said:

The non-negotiating behavior has been going on longer than Trump, as I understand it.

McConnell needs to go.
As a consistent Republican strategy, it's been ramping up since at least Newt Gingrich.
Exactly!
Newt is a "de-constructor".
What's the right word?
Obstructionist?
He lives to oppose, not unite and build together.
In this vain, the Right sees their righteousness thru the battle with others.
It's the battle vs satin mindset.

Take that element out of the equation and they stand for what?
They wouldn't know. They would be lost, without a mission.

So, if Dems suddenly were on their side, who/what is their enemy to breath life into their mission, to set a course forward? Immigrants?

Nazis all over again.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You guys are wasting your time trying to have a rational discussion with a radicalized white winger. He's obviously hysterical and doesn't seem to grasp the issues he pretends to be so objectively authoritative on.

You may as well spend your time trying to explain the rules of grammar to Trump - you will never make a dent.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

You guys are wasting your time trying to have a rational discussion with a radicalized white winger. He's obviously hysterical and doesn't seem to grasp the issues he pretends to be so objectively authoritative on.

You may as well spend your time trying to explain the rules of grammar to Trump - you will never make a dent.
My intended audience are the other people who might read this crap and start to believe it. The person who posts it is usually a lost cause.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy

Neither of your links here are to an actual study. They are to editorials by politically conservative writers or outlets (one of which is more than 20 years old). Their claims are not well-cited in most cases. I think you can do better than this.


No - he can't do better than that.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

There are big and small business and political interests on both sides of the partisan aisle that want a steady influx of menial laborers. Politically, it's a losing interest for Dems to play any role in any legislation that curbs immigration, legally or illegally. They are wise to do what they're doing from a strategic standpoint. Wrong to do from a sound policy/national interest stand point, but that's not unique to either party. Ho hum.
You seem to have ignored me in the other thread, so I'll ask again here: show your work. Don't just assert that immigration definitely needs to be curbed, prove it. What evidence I can find suggests that immigration probably has little-to-no impact on American workers' wages.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration-reduce-wages

Given that you are a logical being not ruled by emotions or compassion, providing your evidence should be no problem.
Are you saying you're for illegal immigration? What's the magic number? Shouldn't it be zero?

If you could wave a magic wand, would you eliminate all illegal immigration tomorrow? Would you deport illegal immigrants who held no job or has a criminal record? Do tell.
That wasn't my question. Your arguments all seem to rest on the idea that immigration is definitely a net negative and definitely needs to be curbed. I want to see your evidence for that.
Coward.
This seems like an emotional argument to me. I thought you were the logical one here? Please deal with the substance of my argument.
LOL you pretend like you can't imagine -- or never have viewed, studies that demonstrate the liabilities of importing poverty from 3rd world countries. There are literally thousands of studies, aside from basic economic logic of supply and demand, and poverty. Nobody's buying it, because you'd be exposing yourself as ignorant. You simply have an ideology and sticking to it. No punching down, as the saying goes.

You pretend like you're oblivious to how poverty is a net drain, thus can't imagine why importing millions of foreign poverty doesn't have adverse economic, social and cultural impacts. It's so ridiculous that it need not be entertained, actually.

You don't have the courage to say "I acknowledge it has many adverse impacts, but I feel for 3rd world brown people, and I'd like them to have a chance at a better life." At least that's honest. It's illogical and dumb and actually immoral, but at least it's honest. You're trying to play both sides of the fence -- shill for both foreign brown people and the American working poor by saying we should open up borders because it's a net gain for everyone! There are costs and benefits to every policy

Neither of your links here are to an actual study. They are to editorials by politically conservative writers or outlets (one of which is more than 20 years old). Their claims are not well-cited in most cases. I think you can do better than this.


No - he can't do better than that.

Oh, I think he can. He doesn't WANT to, because he's an anti-immigration ideologue.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:


I have volunteered time to help people apply for DACA. And while a small sample size, the kids I've helped have been some of the most intelligent, hardest working people I've ever met.

People are absolutely entitled to their opinions. But if you really care to know what these DACA recipients are actually like, I'd invite you to meet some. Hopefully, USCIS will once again start accepting initial DACA applications. And if that day ever comes, I personally invite you to come with me to help people apply for DACA. And after that, if you still believe these kids are underserving, so be it.
Cute story. But anecdotal and wholly irrelevant.

I went to K-12 with mostly minorities. Some were black, and none of them were criminals. Good thing I don't assume blacks are less violent than whites based on my personal experiences. Nobody who rejects DACA is inherently making a claim about any one or subgroup of DACA individuals. It's not to demonize all the members that fall into that category.

These are obvious distinctions that don't need to be voiced unless there is a pretext of group identity politics being played. It's not about "deserve". I mean, don't ALL poor children deserve the kind of opportunity America potentially provides. That's literally neither here nor there.

The results of Hispanic performance in American society is not just underwhelming, it's alarming -- from culture to IQ to values: illiteracy rates, illigitimacy rates, HS graduation rates, crime rates -- all while out pacing the American birth rate 2x. . The goal of any civil society isn't to import the culture that produces these results, it's to deport them. At minimum it's to prevent it's proportion from increasing.

Again, there will invariably be many, many DACA recipients who will go on to become great economic and socio-cultural contributors.

What I'm rejecting is obvious: the conflict between a mealy-mouth de facto open border philosophy of acquiescing the importation of (illicit) 3rd world poverty while also proclaiming to be champions of the working under-class that consists largely of (legal) minorities. An example of how this plays out:
Quote:


This dynamic played out recently at a large bakery in Chicago that supplies buns to McDonald's. Some 800 immigrant laborers, most of them from Mexico, lost their jobs last year after an audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Cloverhill Bakery, owned by Aryzta, a big Swiss food conglomerate, had to hire new workers, 80% to 90% of whom are African American. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the new workers are paid $14 per hour, or $4 per hour more than the (illegal) immigrant workers.

DACA also gives hundreds and thousands of workers with the necessary documentation to compete with lower income positions held in many fields largely by legal African American and Hispanic American citizens.

There are certainly winners of illegal immigration -- cheap labor, lower wages for business owners, transferring and fueling profits and cheaper goods.

One one hand we clamor for higher minimum wages and admonish greedy corp for employing such cheap labor, then we actively promote or acquiesce the importation of millions of low wage laborers to compete with the already outstretched underclass.

There's no honest way to support both.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:



The results of Hispanic performance in American society is not just underwhelming, it's alarming -- from culture to IQ to values: illiteracy rates, illigitimacy rates, HS graduation rates, crime rates -- all while out pacing the American birth rate 2x. . The goal of any civil society isn't to import the culture that produces these results, it's to deport them. At minimum it's to prevent it's proportion from increasing.



You do understand that other people may have a different viewpoint on what "civil society" means right?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.