Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[Politician Spock]

For most of them it's directly related. For some it isn't.

Okay, let's go with directly related to our economic needs, and ignore the minority that is not. How close is the 50,000 to our needs? If we know how many come in when the economy is up and how many come in when it's down, why can't we know how far off 50,000 is?

 

[timschochet]

Christo, that article, which is titled "Immigration and the economic crisis", considers the relationship between immigration, including illegal immigration, and the economic crisis. It makes the point that during the recent crisis the amount of illegal immigration has gone down. This is backed up by the Pew Policy Center. It does NOT prove my additional contention that good economic times brings more illegal immigration, though that is a logical inference. That argument has been made elsewhere.

 

[timschochet]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

 

[Politician Spock]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.

I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

 

[jonessed]

$11.2 billionThe amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.

Let's just take this figure alone, because it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS several claims that have been made in this thread.

What's the net benefit? Gross tax revenue alone doesn't mean much.

 

[timschochet]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.

I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.

And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

 

[timschochet]

$11.2 billionThe amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.

Let's just take this figure alone, because it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS several claims that have been made in this thread.

What's the net benefit? Gross tax revenue alone doesn't mean much.

And again, that's a separate argument, highly contentious. But I could ask the same question about the majority of legal residents in Mississippi (to cite one example), many of whom collect all sorts of stuff from the government- what is the net benefit?

I posted that figure because there were claims made, earlier in the thread, by Sarnoff and others, that illegals avoid paying taxes. That is a false claim.

 

[timschochet]

Going to bed guys. Night!

 

[Politician Spock]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.

I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

When the government incurs the costs for social services these people consume, the government is involved.

And the market is not deciding how many immigrants we need. They are coming here hoping to get a job. If there are no jobs, they still come.

 

[jonessed]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

That doesn't work with the types of safety nets modern governments provide. The market for low wage labor is heavily subsidized.Taking in uneducated single moms or orphaned kids is lunacy. There is no benefit there at all.

 

[jonessed]

$11.2 billionThe amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.

Let's just take this figure alone, because it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS several claims that have been made in this thread.

What's the net benefit? Gross tax revenue alone doesn't mean much.

And again, that's a separate argument, highly contentious. But I could ask the same question about the majority of legal residents in Mississippi (to cite one example), many of whom collect all sorts of stuff from the government- what is the net benefit?I posted that figure because there were claims made, earlier in the thread, by Sarnoff and others, that illegals avoid paying taxes. That is a false claim.

Where did someone claim that no illegal in the country pays taxes? That's almost as dumb as saying no illegal in the country avoids paying taxes.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

That doesn't work with the types of safety nets modern governments provide. The market for low wage labor is heavily subsidized.Taking in uneducated single moms or orphaned kids is lunacy. There is no benefit there at all.

the benefit is we as a nation will be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience

 

[Rich Conway]

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/07/06/11888/the-facts-on-immigration-today/

Immigrants are a net plus for our economy

• $1.5 trillion—The amount of money that would be added to U.S. cumulative gross domestic product over 10 years with a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes legalization for all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States.
• $11.2 billion—The amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.
• $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion—The amount of additional net tax revenue that would accrue to the federal government over three years if all undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States were legalized.

In contrast…

• $2.6 trillion—The amount of money that would evaporate from U.S. cumulative GDP over 10 years if all undocumented immigrants in the country were deported or “self-deport.”
• $285 billion—The cost of removing the entire undocumented population from the United States over a five-year period, including continued border- and interior-enforcement efforts.
• $23,482—The cost of apprehending, detaining, processing, and transporting one individual in deportation proceedings.

Do you guys want to question these facts too? Because they make all of your claims on this issue look like the total crap that they are.

Seriously? Why is it that when a "fact" that you like appears, you accept it without question? Where's your "peer review" process? Did you look for studies that show the opposite?

Do you understand what a "fact" is? Something doesn't become a fact just because you write it down. Something doesn't become a fact just because one person creates a "study". From your arguments on global warming, it seems that you do know these things, but you simply choose to ignore them as soon as the topic changes to racism or immigration. On those, you'll cling to the flimsiest possible branch in support of your positions.

Also, did you read the specific items you quoted? None of them state that illegal immigration is a "net positive" to the economy or government budgets. The items you quote pick and choose specific lines within the budget and economy, then you completely ignore the economic meaning of the word "net", and claim those specific lines equal "net positive".

 

[Rich Conway]

As to your point, we need both. We need educated people, and frankly we need people willing to work for low wages as well. (In fact, the reality is we need people who are willing to work for below minimum wage. We need illegal immigrants.)

You realize, of course, that the bolded argues for continuing the status quo, right?

 

[Rich Conway]

$11.2 billionThe amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.

Let's just take this figure alone, because it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS several claims that have been made in this thread.

What's the net benefit? Gross tax revenue alone doesn't mean much.

And again, that's a separate argument, highly contentious. But I could ask the same question about the majority of legal residents in Mississippi (to cite one example), many of whom collect all sorts of stuff from the government- what is the net benefit?

I posted that figure because there were claims made, earlier in the thread, by Sarnoff and others, that illegals avoid paying taxes. That is a false claim.

I don't think anyone has stated that illegals don't pay taxes at all. That's just silly.

I imagine that most illegals, like most legal immigrants and like most US citizens, seek to avoid paying taxes when possible. That shouldn't be a controversial statement. It also is completely irrelevant to the debate regarding whether illegals are a net positive or net negative.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Everyone needs to realize that America LOVES illegal immigrants.

If we didnt love them so much, we would enforce our wimpy laws and go after the thousands and thousands of American businesses and people employing and exploiting them. Until then, I will assume all this talk of "enforcing the borders" is just complete mendacious faux outrage intended to deflect attention away from the actual problem: we love illegal immigrants, we need illegal immigrants, and we want illegal immigrants.

 

[timschochet]

As to your point, we need both. We need educated people, and frankly we need people willing to work for low wages as well. (In fact, the reality is we need people who are willing to work for below minimum wage. We need illegal immigrants.)

You realize, of course, that the bolded argues for continuing the status quo, right?

I wasn't going to respond today (I repeated most of my usual arguments last night and I'm sure nobody really wants to hear them yet again) but you raise an interesting point here, one that I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about. Let's consider the following:

1. Immigration reform, meaning a new path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, is politically dead. The GOP is going to control the House for some time to come (and possibly the Senate) and it's not going to happen. (And even if the Dems somehow regain control, they haven't exactly shown the political will to do it either- as witness 2009-10.)

2. As much as some people here want it, neither a fence nor penalties for businesses that hire illegals is going to happen anytime soon either. The Dems are against it, and so are the Chamber of Commerce type Republicans. Between these two forces, they can and will stop this.

So what we have is a stalemate, and indeed, status quo. Illegals continue to come into this country (though due to economic conditions, not as many as before), but they stay illegal. Nobody professes to like the status quo, yet there is not enough political will on either side to change it.

So to answer your point- am I arguing for the status quo? As an alternative to what I'd like to have happen, no. As an alternative to what YOU'D like to have happen, yes. But whether I like it or not, it doesn't look to end anytime soon.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

50,000 for the entire world. Divide that among each country with people trying to get here, and it's a meaningless number.

In addition, most of the people who come here illegally are poverty stricken and wouldn't have the first clue as to how to fill out the proper forms or get into that lottery in the first place.

The size of the world doesn't matter. We don't have a responsibility to take in everyone in the world. 50,000 is plenty for us to absorb every year.

That's a separate argument and I'm not contradicting you. (Well, I don't agree with your last sentence, but it's still a separate argument.)

What number should it be? 100,000? 200,000? 500,000? What's the "right" number?

I don't know. We've never been close to it.

What criteria is used to determine the right number?

How about we start with 50,000/yr and see how it goes? Once we establish actual facts with those 50,000/yr we can then increase or decrease accordingly.

How about we deport all of the illegals, a number frequently estimated at 12 to 20 million. Then, every year until we replace that population we increase our legal lottery number from 50,000 to 1,050,000 as long as the economy is comfortably absorbing them and showing the touted net benefits.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

$11.2 billionThe amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.

Let's just take this figure alone, because it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS several claims that have been made in this thread.

What's the net benefit? Gross tax revenue alone doesn't mean much.

And again, that's a separate argument, highly contentious. But I could ask the same question about the majority of legal residents in Mississippi (to cite one example), many of whom collect all sorts of stuff from the government- what is the net benefit?

I posted that figure because there were claims made, earlier in the thread, by Sarnoff and others, that illegals avoid paying taxes. That is a false claim.

That some taxes are unavoidable does not speak, at all, to whether persons seek to avoid taxes. Posse Comitatus nuts certainly seek to avoid taxes, yet they have to pay some. Do you never tire of being demonstrably wrong? Whether illegals seek to avoid taxation, or to participate therein is not enlightened by the payment of unavoidable taxes included at points of purchase.

 

[timschochet]

$11.2 billionThe amount of money households headed by unauthorized immigrants paid in state and local taxes in 2010.

Let's just take this figure alone, because it COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS several claims that have been made in this thread.

What's the net benefit? Gross tax revenue alone doesn't mean much.

And again, that's a separate argument, highly contentious. But I could ask the same question about the majority of legal residents in Mississippi (to cite one example), many of whom collect all sorts of stuff from the government- what is the net benefit?

I posted that figure because there were claims made, earlier in the thread, by Sarnoff and others, that illegals avoid paying taxes. That is a false claim.

That some taxes are unavoidable does not speak, at all, to whether persons seek to avoid taxes. Posse Comitatus nuts certainly seek to avoid taxes, yet they have to pay some. Do you never tire of being demonstrably wrong? Whether illegals seek to avoid taxation, or to participate therein is not enlightened by the payment of unavoidable taxes included at points of purchase.

LOL. The argument made earlier wasn't that illegals try to avoid paying taxes, it was that they AVOID paying taxes. Which isn't true.

Make them legal, and they'll pay a lot more taxes. Isn't that a win-win?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

God you are a simp. One can only avoid that which is avoidable, not, by definition, the unavoidable.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

To me a win - win scenario would be to deport all illegal immigrants and to replace them, if sound policy, with legal immigrants and legal guest workers. We would have all the benefits, presuming there are benefits, with none of the bitter aftertaste of sanctioning illegal behavior and allowing lawbreakers to drive public policy.

 

[timschochet]

To me a win - win scenario would be to deport all illegal immigrants and to replace them, if sound policy, with legal immigrants and legal guest workers. We would have all the benefits, presuming there are benefits, with none of the bitter aftertaste of sanctioning illegal behavior and allowing lawbreakers to drive public policy.

You call me a "simp" and demonstrably wrong, and yet you propose to deport all illegal immigrants. You know that's not going to happen. Why even propose it?

And if we fine illegals, perhaps $5000 or even $10000 as a penalty for breaking the law by coming here, how is that sanctioning illegal behavior? IMO, it's a suitable punishment and it upholds the law. Then we let them stay. What's wrong with that?

 

[jonessed]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

That doesn't work with the types of safety nets modern governments provide. The market for low wage labor is heavily subsidized.Taking in uneducated single moms or orphaned kids is lunacy. There is no benefit there at all.

the benefit is we as a nation will be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience

That's your hang-up. Every country in the world deports people.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

That doesn't work with the types of safety nets modern governments provide. The market for low wage labor is heavily subsidized.Taking in uneducated single moms or orphaned kids is lunacy. There is no benefit there at all.

the benefit is we as a nation will be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience

That's your hang-up. Every country in the world deports people.

My hang up or tims? i was being sarcastic (hence the rolling eyes)

 

[jonessed]

Politician Spock, my reasonable assumption is that most of the 50,000 are not coming here for the migrant worker/below minimum wage jobs that illegals tend to fill. So it's not really related. A guest worker program, if we ever had one, would be more applicable to the discussion.

I'm not asking about the 50,000 legals.I'm asking how many illegals do we need when the economy is good and how many illegals do we need when the economy is bad?

We can use that data to determine how far off the 50,000 is from what it needs to be.

And my point is that we can't because they're not coming here for the same kind of work.And my larger point is that we shouldn't spend time trying to figure out how many immigrants we need. We're not a planned economy. The whole point of capitalism is that things fluctuate, and that's a good thing. If we had an open flow of immigration, the market would decide how many immigrants we would need. If there are lots of jobs here, they will come. If there are no jobs to be had, they won't come. That's why I find your questions (how many can we take in?) rather purposeless. Let the market decide that. The government needn't be involved.

That doesn't work with the types of safety nets modern governments provide. The market for low wage labor is heavily subsidized.Taking in uneducated single moms or orphaned kids is lunacy. There is no benefit there at all.

the benefit is we as a nation will be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience

That's your hang-up. Every country in the world deports people.

My hang up or tims? i was being sarcastic (hence the rolling eyes)

Ah, sorry. Tim's in this case then.

 

[timschochet]

I sleep just fine at night guys. Just because I would prefer a different policy doesn't mean I cent live with this one. Immigration is important, but it's not life or death.

 

[Rich Conway]

As to your point, we need both. We need educated people, and frankly we need people willing to work for low wages as well. (In fact, the reality is we need people who are willing to work for below minimum wage. We need illegal immigrants.)

You realize, of course, that the bolded argues for continuing the status quo, right?

I wasn't going to respond today (I repeated most of my usual arguments last night and I'm sure nobody really wants to hear them yet again) but you raise an interesting point here, one that I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about. Let's consider the following:

1. Immigration reform, meaning a new path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, is politically dead. The GOP is going to control the House for some time to come (and possibly the Senate) and it's not going to happen. (And even if the Dems somehow regain control, they haven't exactly shown the political will to do it either- as witness 2009-10.)

2. As much as some people here want it, neither a fence nor penalties for businesses that hire illegals is going to happen anytime soon either. The Dems are against it, and so are the Chamber of Commerce type Republicans. Between these two forces, they can and will stop this.

So what we have is a stalemate, and indeed, status quo. Illegals continue to come into this country (though due to economic conditions, not as many as before), but they stay illegal. Nobody professes to like the status quo, yet there is not enough political will on either side to change it.

So to answer your point- am I arguing for the status quo? As an alternative to what I'd like to have happen, no. As an alternative to what YOU'D like to have happen, yes. But whether I like it or not, it doesn't look to end anytime soon.

None of that is really responsive to my point.

You appear to be arguing that the US needs workers who will work for less than minimum wage. If that's so, then granting legal status to all current and future-would-be illegals would create a new problem, in that then there would be no workers "eligible/willing" to work for less than minimum wage.

 

[timschochet]

Well you have a point. What we really need to do, IMO, is get rid of minimum wage, but that's politically impossible too. So yes there's likely always to be some illegals as a result.

 

[CBusAlex]

Allow unlimited immigration and eliminate the minimum wage? That might have the widest "support from economists / support from the general public" ratio of any proposal ever in the history of politics.

 

[Politician Spock]

Well you have a point. What we really need to do, IMO, is get rid of minimum wage, but that's politically impossible too. So yes there's likely always to be some illegals as a result.

So you are arguing for the impossible. As I said here: Idealism without pragmatism has no way of succeeding.

 

[timschochet]

Well you have a point. What we really need to do, IMO, is get rid of minimum wage, but that's politically impossible too. So yes there's likely always to be some illegals as a result.

So you are arguing for the impossible. As I said here: Idealism without pragmatism has no way of succeeding.

I'm not arguing for the impossible. Sever people have asked for my views about what I would like to see happen, and I have answered as best I could. If you're asking what I would like to see happen that is at all practicable: I have answered that as well: passage of the recently proposed immigration reform package. I don't expect it to happen in the next few years, but by decades' end it's a reasonable goal. First Hillary Clinton will have to demolish the Republican candidate in 2016. Then the GOP will finally be forced to reassess.

 

[Politician Spock]

Well you have a point. What we really need to do, IMO, is get rid of minimum wage, but that's politically impossible too. So yes there's likely always to be some illegals as a result.

So you are arguing for the impossible. As I said here: Idealism without pragmatism has no way of succeeding.

I'm not arguing for the impossible. Sever people have asked for my views about what I would like to see happen, and I have answered as best I could.If you're asking what I would like to see happen that is at all practicable: I have answered that as well: passage of the recently proposed immigration reform package. I don't expect it to happen in the next few years, but by decades' end it's a reasonable goal. First Hillary Clinton will have to demolish the Republican candidate in 2016. Then the GOP will finally be forced to reassess.

You are talking around yourself. While you may be able to follow your path in your own mind, no one seems to be following all the directions you're going in here.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

Well you have a point. What we really need to do, IMO, is get rid of minimum wage, but that's politically impossible too. So yes there's likely always to be some illegals as a result.

So you are arguing for the impossible. As I said here: Idealism without pragmatism has no way of succeeding.

I'm not arguing for the impossible. Sever people have asked for my views about what I would like to see happen, and I have answered as best I could. If you're asking what I would like to see happen that is at all practicable: I have answered that as well: passage of the recently proposed immigration reform package. I don't expect it to happen in the next few years, but by decades' end it's a reasonable goal. First Hillary Clinton will have to demolish the Republican candidate in 2016. Then the GOP will finally be forced to reassess.

You're assuming that logic is a part of the GOP process.

 

[The Commish]

Well you have a point. What we really need to do, IMO, is get rid of minimum wage, but that's politically impossible too. So yes there's likely always to be some illegals as a result.

So you are arguing for the impossible. As I said here: Idealism without pragmatism has no way of succeeding.

I'm not arguing for the impossible. Sever people have asked for my views about what I would like to see happen, and I have answered as best I could.If you're asking what I would like to see happen that is at all practicable: I have answered that as well: passage of the recently proposed immigration reform package. I don't expect it to happen in the next few years, but by decades' end it's a reasonable goal. First Hillary Clinton will have to demolish the Republican candidate in 2016. Then the GOP will finally be forced to reassess.

You are talking around yourself. While you may be able to follow your path in your own mind, no one seems to be following all the directions you're going in here.

He's mixing ideology with practicality where it fits his narrative and ignoring both where it doesn't fit. That's why I asked the specific questions I did before that went unanswered. It's an absolutely fruitless approach and quite frankly I'm not really sure why anyone's trying to keep up with it.

 

[timschochet]

One of my favorite authors making good sense here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/23/novelist-stephen-king-goes-off-on-tea-party-christians-for-heartless-hypocrisy/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

You may know Stephen King as the great horror writer, but did you know he’s also not too bad at trolling Tea Partiers when they are acting like heartless monsters?

King was incensed, as were many people, at how some on the right-wing were responding to the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the border. As over 50,000 Central American children collected at the U.S. border hoping to reach safety, the Tea Party has been engaged in a smear campaign, labeling the children as disease-ridden, invaders coming to take our freedoms. Unlike the UN (or the Pope), these anti-immigrant hardliners refuse to recognize the children – many as young as five or six – as anything but “illegal immigrants,” not refugees, not children, just more “illegals” that don’t belong here.

In a low point in America’s claim to exceptionalism, many Christian Tea Party groups have assembled along the border to threaten and harass the children as they are taken to various immigration holding stations. In many cases, the children must pass through large mobs of angry, screaming people demanding they “self-deport” back to where they came from. Others have organized mercenary militia groups to march along the border with assault rifles hoping to scare any children away from even trying to cross. In several cases, the leaders of these groups have asked their followers to shoot at anyone they suspect of trying to cross the border illegally, despite pleas from local law enforcement to leave.

It is into this ethically deplorable scene that King decided to wade, sickened by what he was seeing from people whom self-identified (somewhat defensively) as conservative Christians.

Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing Follow

Revised Tea Party Gospel: "Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America."

Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your back yard, isn't it?

Maybe send them back w/o screaming at them, for a start? Or is that too much to ask?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

What is Obama doing? Create a SuperAmerica by removing all borders in our Continent?

 

[timschochet]

What is Obama doing? Create a SuperAmerica by removing all borders in our Continent?

What has Obama done that is close to this? Why would you even write this?

Last I read, Obama has increased border security every year he has been President. Seriously, where do people get this stuff?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What is Obama doing? Create a SuperAmerica by removing all borders in our Continent?

What has Obama done that is close to this? Why would you even write this?

Last I read, Obama has increased border security every year he has been President. Seriously, where do people get this stuff?

probably from the lack any real immigration reforms

 

[poopdawg]

What is Obama doing? Create a SuperAmerica by removing all borders in our Continent?

What has Obama done that is close to this? Why would you even write this?Last I read, Obama has increased border security every year he has been President. Seriously, where do people get this stuff?

Probably in response to the ill-conceived notion that Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president.

If I deport 100k immigrants out of the 500k that have attempted to come through versus someone else that has deported 90k out of 100k that have attempted to come through, then I am doing a better job, right?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Love this.

Obama is inciting the GOP wingjob wacknuts to impeach him.

Or at the very least is driving an immigration-sized wedge between the Tea Party and the rest of the country (including Boehner and Senate Republicans not named Cruz).

 

[Greggity]

One of my favorite authors making good sense here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/23/novelist-stephen-king-goes-off-on-tea-party-christians-for-heartless-hypocrisy/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

You may know Stephen King as the great horror writer, but did you know he’s also not too bad at trolling Tea Partiers when they are acting like heartless monsters?

King was incensed, as were many people, at how some on the right-wing were responding to the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the border. As over 50,000 Central American children collected at the U.S. border hoping to reach safety, the Tea Party has been engaged in a smear campaign, labeling the children as disease-ridden, invaders coming to take our freedoms. Unlike the UN (or the Pope), these anti-immigrant hardliners refuse to recognize the children – many as young as five or six – as anything but “illegal immigrants,” not refugees, not children, just more “illegals” that don’t belong here.

In a low point in America’s claim to exceptionalism, many Christian Tea Party groups have assembled along the border to threaten and harass the children as they are taken to various immigration holding stations. In many cases, the children must pass through large mobs of angry, screaming people demanding they “self-deport” back to where they came from. Others have organized mercenary militia groups to march along the border with assault rifles hoping to scare any children away from even trying to cross. In several cases, the leaders of these groups have asked their followers to shoot at anyone they suspect of trying to cross the border illegally, despite pleas from local law enforcement to leave.

It is into this ethically deplorable scene that King decided to wade, sickened by what he was seeing from people whom self-identified (somewhat defensively) as conservative Christians.

Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing Follow

Revised Tea Party Gospel: "Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America."

Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your back yard, isn't it?

Maybe send them back w/o screaming at them, for a start? Or is that too much to ask?

King is living in his fantasy land, liberal head. He doesnt have to worry about kids in central america invading bangor Maine. Man im so glad i got out of that jacked up, hippy state.

 

[timschochet]

One of my favorite authors making good sense here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/23/novelist-stephen-king-goes-off-on-tea-party-christians-for-heartless-hypocrisy/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

You may know Stephen King as the great horror writer, but did you know he’s also not too bad at trolling Tea Partiers when they are acting like heartless monsters?

King was incensed, as were many people, at how some on the right-wing were responding to the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the border. As over 50,000 Central American children collected at the U.S. border hoping to reach safety, the Tea Party has been engaged in a smear campaign, labeling the children as disease-ridden, invaders coming to take our freedoms. Unlike the UN (or the Pope), these anti-immigrant hardliners refuse to recognize the children – many as young as five or six – as anything but “illegal immigrants,” not refugees, not children, just more “illegals” that don’t belong here.

In a low point in America’s claim to exceptionalism, many Christian Tea Party groups have assembled along the border to threaten and harass the children as they are taken to various immigration holding stations. In many cases, the children must pass through large mobs of angry, screaming people demanding they “self-deport” back to where they came from. Others have organized mercenary militia groups to march along the border with assault rifles hoping to scare any children away from even trying to cross. In several cases, the leaders of these groups have asked their followers to shoot at anyone they suspect of trying to cross the border illegally, despite pleas from local law enforcement to leave.

It is into this ethically deplorable scene that King decided to wade, sickened by what he was seeing from people whom self-identified (somewhat defensively) as conservative Christians.

Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing Follow

Revised Tea Party Gospel: "Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America."

Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your back yard, isn't it?

Maybe send them back w/o screaming at them, for a start? Or is that too much to ask?

King is living in his fantasy land, liberal head. He doesnt have to worry about kids in central america invading bangor Maine. Man im so glad i got out of that jacked up, hippy state.

You didn't like living in Maine? I hear it's absolutely beautiful. And you're kind of a rural guy aren't you? Like to hunt and stuff? I figure Maine would be perfect for someone like you. I'm surprised.

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

One of my favorite authors making good sense here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/23/novelist-stephen-king-goes-off-on-tea-party-christians-for-heartless-hypocrisy/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

You may know Stephen King as the great horror writer, but did you know hes also not too bad at trolling Tea Partiers when they are acting like heartless monsters?

King was incensed, as were many people, at how some on the right-wing were responding to the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the border. As over 50,000 Central American children collected at the U.S. border hoping to reach safety, the Tea Party has been engaged in a smear campaign, labeling the children as disease-ridden, invaders coming to take our freedoms. Unlike the UN (or the Pope), these anti-immigrant hardliners refuse to recognize the children many as young as five or six as anything but illegal immigrants, not refugees, not children, just more illegals that dont belong here.

In a low point in Americas claim to exceptionalism, many Christian Tea Party groups have assembled along the border to threaten and harass the children as they are taken to various immigration holding stations. In many cases, the children must pass through large mobs of angry, screaming people demanding they self-deport back to where they came from. Others have organized mercenary militia groups to march along the border with assault rifles hoping to scare any children away from even trying to cross. In several cases, the leaders of these groups have asked their followers to shoot at anyone they suspect of trying to cross the border illegally, despite pleas from local law enforcement to leave.

It is into this ethically deplorable scene that King decided to wade, sickened by what he was seeing from people whom self-identified (somewhat defensively) as conservative Christians.

Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing Follow

Revised Tea Party Gospel: "Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America."

Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your back yard, isn't it?

Maybe send them back w/o screaming at them, for a start? Or is that too much to ask?

King is living in his fantasy land, liberal head. He doesnt have to worry about kids in central america invading bangor Maine. Man im so glad i got out of that jacked up, hippy state.

You didn't like living in Maine? I hear it's absolutely beautiful. And you're kind of a rural guy aren't you? Like to hunt and stuff? I figure Maine would be perfect for someone like you. I'm surprised.

Not enough racism.

 

[urbanhack]

One of my favorite authors making good sense here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/23/novelist-stephen-king-goes-off-on-tea-party-christians-for-heartless-hypocrisy/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

You may know Stephen King as the great horror writer, but did you know he’s also not too bad at trolling Tea Partiers when they are acting like heartless monsters?

King was incensed, as were many people, at how some on the right-wing were responding to the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the border. As over 50,000 Central American children collected at the U.S. border hoping to reach safety, the Tea Party has been engaged in a smear campaign, labeling the children as disease-ridden, invaders coming to take our freedoms. Unlike the UN (or the Pope), these anti-immigrant hardliners refuse to recognize the children – many as young as five or six – as anything but “illegal immigrants,” not refugees, not children, just more “illegals” that don’t belong here.

In a low point in America’s claim to exceptionalism, many Christian Tea Party groups have assembled along the border to threaten and harass the children as they are taken to various immigration holding stations. In many cases, the children must pass through large mobs of angry, screaming people demanding they “self-deport” back to where they came from. Others have organized mercenary militia groups to march along the border with assault rifles hoping to scare any children away from even trying to cross. In several cases, the leaders of these groups have asked their followers to shoot at anyone they suspect of trying to cross the border illegally, despite pleas from local law enforcement to leave.

It is into this ethically deplorable scene that King decided to wade, sickened by what he was seeing from people whom self-identified (somewhat defensively) as conservative Christians.

Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing Follow

Revised Tea Party Gospel: "Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America."

Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your back yard, isn't it?

Maybe send them back w/o screaming at them, for a start? Or is that too much to ask?

King is living in his fantasy land, liberal head. He doesnt have to worry about kids in central america invading bangor Maine. Man im so glad i got out of that jacked up, hippy state.

Invading?

 

[urbanhack]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-chicago-immigration-20140728,0,7144633.story

 

[Dan Gladden's Mustache]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-chicago-immigration-20140728,0,7144633.story

to Rahm and that Judge in Dallas.

 

[Loan Sharks]

One of my favorite authors making good sense here:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/23/novelist-stephen-king-goes-off-on-tea-party-christians-for-heartless-hypocrisy/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com

You may know Stephen King as the great horror writer, but did you know he’s also not too bad at trolling Tea Partiers when they are acting like heartless monsters?

King was incensed, as were many people, at how some on the right-wing were responding to the humanitarian crisis unfolding on the border. As over 50,000 Central American children collected at the U.S. border hoping to reach safety, the Tea Party has been engaged in a smear campaign, labeling the children as disease-ridden, invaders coming to take our freedoms. Unlike the UN (or the Pope), these anti-immigrant hardliners refuse to recognize the children – many as young as five or six – as anything but “illegal immigrants,” not refugees, not children, just more “illegals” that don’t belong here.

In a low point in America’s claim to exceptionalism, many Christian Tea Party groups have assembled along the border to threaten and harass the children as they are taken to various immigration holding stations. In many cases, the children must pass through large mobs of angry, screaming people demanding they “self-deport” back to where they came from. Others have organized mercenary militia groups to march along the border with assault rifles hoping to scare any children away from even trying to cross. In several cases, the leaders of these groups have asked their followers to shoot at anyone they suspect of trying to cross the border illegally, despite pleas from local law enforcement to leave.

It is into this ethically deplorable scene that King decided to wade, sickened by what he was seeing from people whom self-identified (somewhat defensively) as conservative Christians.

Stephen King ✔ @StephenKing Follow

Revised Tea Party Gospel: "Suffer the little children come unto me. Unless they're undocumented kids from Central America."

Much easier to be a Christian when the little children aren't in your back yard, isn't it?

Maybe send them back w/o screaming at them, for a start? Or is that too much to ask?

King is living in his fantasy land, liberal head. He doesnt have to worry about kids in central america invading bangor Maine. Man im so glad i got out of that jacked up, hippy state.

Invading?

Yes this is hilarious. Nothing is funnier than Nogales Warehouse. It is a regular comedy club here is AZ, two drink minimum on us, for everyone.

 

[saintfool]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-chicago-immigration-20140728,0,7144633.story

to be fair, he is pandering for the latino voters in chicago because he's hated in non-white communities for a host of reasons.

 

[Christo]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-chicago-immigration-20140728,0,7144633.story

to be fair, he is pandering for the latino voters in chicago because he's hated in non-white communities for a host of reasons.

And we do have a lot of empty schools.