What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Let's talk about illegal immigration (2 Viewers)

timschochet

Footballguy
I've started threads on this topic before (though not for a few years). But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry. Here, from the American Civil Liberties Union, (2008) is a pretty good summary of the truth about this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997 arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration's fiscal impactsthe National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over timeapproximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times.1This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that "the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive," and agree with the NRC report's view that "only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants."2

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, noncitizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American.3 In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen.4 Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Likewise, according to Department of Agriculture reports, noncitizens who are eligible for food stamps are significantly less likely to use them than are all other individuals who are eligible for the program. For example, about 45 percent of eligible noncitizens received food stamps in 2002, compared to almost 60 percent of eligible individuals overall.5

Most of the fiscal impact from immigration is felt at the state and local levels. The Council of Economic Advisors points out in its report to the Executive Office of the President that "the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but the net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level," which bear primary responsibility for providing not only health care but education.6

Still, according to recent studies from a number of cities and statesincluding the states of Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina and Arkansas, and cities or counties of Chicago and Santa Clarawhile the cost of educating the children of immigrants may be high, the overall economic benefits of immigrants to the states remain positive.7 A University of Illinois study found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001, stimulating an additional $5.45 billion in total local spending and sustaining 31,908 jobs in the local economy.8

The Udall Center at the University of Arizona found that the fiscal costs of immigrants, starting with education, totaled $1.41 billion in 2004, which, balanced against $1.64 billion in state tax revenue attributable to immigrants as workers, resulted in a fiscal gain of $222.6 million.9 Similarly, in its Special Report about undocumented immigrants in Texas, the Comptroller of Public Accounts found that in 2005, even counting the costs associated with education, "the state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million."10

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.
FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes. Also, as the native-born U.S. population becomes older and better educated, young immigrant workers fill gaps in the low-skilled labor markets.12

With respect to wages, in a 1997 study, the National Research Council estimated the annual wage gain due to immigration for U.S. workers to be $10 billion each year13 in 2007 CEA estimated the gain at over $30 billion per year.14 The CEA acknowledges that an increase in immigrant workers is likely to have some negative impact on the wages of low-skilled native workers, but they found this impact to be relatively small and went on to conclude that reducing immigration "would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans."15

In addition to having an overall positive affect on the average wages of American workers, an increase in immigrant workers also tends to increase employment rates among the native-born. According to a Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2000 and 2004 "there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia." These states included all the major destination states for immigrants and together they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers.16 California, for example, saw an increase in wages of natives by about four percent from 1990 to 2004a period of large influx of immigrants to the statedue to the complimentary skills of immigrant workers and an increase in the demand for tasks performed by native workers.17

MYTH: Immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, don't want to learn English.
FACT: Immigrants, including Latino immigrants, believe they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and the majority uses at least some English at work.

Throughout our country's history, critics of immigration have accused new immigrants of refusing to learn English and to otherwise assimilate. These charges are no truer today than they were then. As with prior waves of immigrants, there is a marked increase in English-language skills from one immigrant generation to the next.18 In the first ever major longitudinal study of the children of immigrants, in 1992 Rambaut and Portes found that "the pattern of linguistic assimilation prevails across nationalities." The authors go on to report that "the linguistic outcomes for the third generationthe grandchildren of the present wave of immigrantswill be little different than what has been the age-old pattern in American immigration history."19

While many first-generation Latino immigrants are unable to speak English, 88 percent of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well.20 And studies show that the number rises dramatically for each subsequent generation. Furthermore, similar to other immigrants, Latinos believe that they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and believe they will be discriminated against if they don't.21 Most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work.22

California's second-generation immigrants experience a large drop in "low levels of English proficiency" compared to first generation immigrants, from 27% to 6%, and the proportion of immigrants with high levels of English proficiency rises from 49% in the first generation to 79% in the second generation. The proportion of both Asian and Latino immigrants, who speak English exclusively rises from 10% in the first generation to 29% in the second and 94% in the third.23

Notwithstanding the current levels of English language acquisition for the newest wave of immigrants, there is a demand for English language classes that far exceeds the supply and which, if met, would greatly advance immigrants' integration into American social and cultural life.

MYTH: Immigrants don't want to become citizens.
FACT: Many immigrants to the United States seek citizenship, even in the face of difficult requirements and huge backlogs that can delay the process for years.

Most immigrants are ineligible to apply for citizenship until they have resided in the U.S. with lawful permanent resident status for five years, have passed background checks, have shown that they have paid their taxes, are of "good moral character, demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and have the ability to understand, speak and write English." In addition, people applying for naturalization have to pay a fee, which increased by 69% in 2007 from $400 to $675, making it much harder for low-income immigrants to reach their dream of becoming Americans.24

Despite these barriers, The Pew Hispanic Center's report on U.S. Census data shows that the proportion of eligible immigrants who have acquired citizenship rose to 52% in 2005, "the highest level in a quarter of a century."15 In the 2007 fiscal year, DHS received 1.4 million citizenship applicationsnearly double from last fiscal year 26and between June and July of 2007, naturalization applications increased 350% compared to last year.27 In his testimony to Congress, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director, Emilio Gonzalez, referred to this increase as "unprecedented in the history of immigration services in our nation."28

Yet, despite the promise by USCIS that backlogs would be eliminated, applications for naturalization can take a year and half to adjudicate and of the 1.4 applications it received in 2007, less than 660,000 have been decided.29

MYTH: Immigrants don't pay taxes.

FACT: Almost all immigrants pay income taxes even though they can't benefit from most federal and state local assistance programs and all immigrants pay sales and property taxes.

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."30

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.31

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paycheckseven though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security systeman estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

MYTH: Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries instead of spending money here.
FACT: Immigrants do send money to family members, making it possible for more people to stay in their home countries rather than migrating to the United States. Importantly, sending remittances home does not keep immigrants from spending money in the United States.

It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.37

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States.39 The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinoseach group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans.40 Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.41

MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to our cities and towns.
FACT: Immigrants are actually far less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts. Even as the undocumented population has increased in the United States, crime rates have decreased significantly.

According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.42

Although incarceration rates are highest among young low-income men and many immigrants arriving in the U.S. are young men with low levels of education, incarceration rates among young men are invariably lower for immigrants than for their native-born counterparts. This is true across every ethnic group but the differences are especially noticeable among Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, who constitute the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.43

Even after taking into account higher deportation rates since the mid 1990's, and reviewing the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to blame a new wave of immigrants for a supposed rise in crime. Yet, Hazleton's own crime statistics taken from the Pennsylvania State Police show that overall crime in the city has decreased and is now less than half of the national average.45

MYTH: Most immigrants are undocumented and have crossed the border illegally.
FACT: Two thirds of immigrants are here lawfullyeither as naturalized citizens or in some other lawful status. Moreover, almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States legally.
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, one third of all immigrants are undocumented, one third have some form of legal status and one third are naturalized citizens. This applies to immigrants from Latin America as well as others.46

Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States on visas that allowed them to reside here temporarilyeither as tourists, students, or temporary workers. This means they were subject to inspection by immigration officials before entering the country,47 and became undocumented only when their visas expired and they didn't leave the country.

MYTH: Weak border enforcement has led to high rates of undocumented immigration. We should increase enforcement and build a wall around our border.
FACT: Increased border security and the construction of border fences have done little to curb the flow of immigrants across the United States border. Instead, these policies have only succeeded in pushing border crossers into dangerous and less-patrolled regions, and increased the undocumented population by creating an incentive for immigrants not to leave.
Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 850 miles of additional border fencing. According to a report by Congressional Research Services, the San Diego fence, combined with increased border patrol agents in the area, succeeded in decreasing border crossing in that region, but at the same time there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert, decreasing the number of apprehensions and increasing the cost.50
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wanted to add, with regard to the point about illegals sending money back to their home country, in the instances where this does happen Maurile Trembilay has argued in the past that this actually benefits the American economy by reducing the amount of US dollars in this country, but not goods and services.

 
By starting off with a link to the ACLU website as "myth busters", you've already lost the debate.

This was easy. What's the next topic?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's cut right to the two central points here:

1. Illegal immigrants, once in this country, are not violent criminals. The vast majority actually obey the law at a higher rate than the average citizen does.

2. Illegal immigrants are a net economic boon for this country.

These two facts are the exact opposite of what Donald Trump has been saying and what most conservatives believe.

 
Mr. President, tear down that wall!!!!!!
Building a wall on our southern border, whoever pays for it, is one of the more absurd ideas that comes up when discussing this issue:

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

 
On the issue itself, I have no idea why Democrats and Republicans alike don't just enforce the last law they agreed upon. Democrats voted for this, Republicans voted for it, just enforce what Democrats voted for. This situation is so mind numbingly dysfunctional it' hard to even begin.

 
Mr. President, tear down that wall!!!!!!
Building a wall on our southern border, whoever pays for it, is one of the more absurd ideas that comes up when discussing this issue:

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49
This is like fonting for old people. Are you in a nursing home?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
Short version, thanks.

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
When was the law on the books enacted and what does it say?

 
The ACLU doesn't state anywhere that opposition to illegal immigration is based on racism. I happen to believe that part of it is. But that's not the purpose of the ACLU's argument, which is based on facts and makes the conclusions I stated earlier: they do not increase crime, and they do not cost the taxpayer money.

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
Oh, it doesn't? Here's what you just posted not more than 5 minutes ago:

"Let's cut right to the two central points here:


1. Illegal immigrants, once in this country, are not violent criminals. The vast majority actually obey the law at a higher rate than the average citizen does.

2. Illegal immigrants are a net economic boon for this country.

These two facts are the exact opposite of what Donald Trump has been saying and what most conservatives believe. "

Seems like you are implying it right there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
When was the law on the books enacted and what does it say?
Which law are you referring to?

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
Oh, it doesn't? Here's what you just posted not more than 5 minutes ago:

"Let's cut right to the two central points here:


1. Illegal immigrants, once in this country, are not violent criminals. The vast majority actually obey the law at a higher rate than the average citizen does.

2. Illegal immigrants are a net economic boon for this country.

These two facts are the exact opposite of what Donald Trump has been saying and what most conservatives believe. "
The last part is my opinion, not the ACLU's. But specifically where do you disagree?

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
When was the law on the books enacted and what does it say?
Which law are you referring to?
Tim, the current law setting out immigration restrictions and entry. What law currently controls immigration in this country?

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
When was the law on the books enacted and what does it say?
Which law are you referring to?
Tim, the current law setting out immigration restrictions and entry. What law currently controls immigration in this country?
There's lots of immigration laws. I'm still not sure which one you're referring to.

Personally, I want a new law that grants amnesty to all illegal immigrants living in this country who are not violent felons. Then I want a loosening of restrictions on immigration to this country- basically an open border unless you're contagious, a terrorist, or a convicted felon. I know I won't get this in my lifetime, but what scares me is that we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. I'll be satisfied, for the moment, with some sort of path to citizenship for illegals.

 
Omg I know I'm one to talk but reduce the font and decrease the text. Tia.
I will but it came in pretty clean, I think.
It's still there. It's almost unreadable. Try some clerical work.
Let me help you with the summary, saints: You're all racists if you don't support illegal immigrants coming into this country illegally.
It doesn't say that anywhere. Nor do I believe it, though it can be part of the equation.
When was the law on the books enacted and what does it say?
Which law are you referring to?
Tim, the current law setting out immigration restrictions and entry. What law currently controls immigration in this country?
There's lots of immigration laws. I'm still not sure which one you're referring to.

Personally, I want a new law that grants amnesty to all illegal immigrants living in this country who are not violent felons. Then I want a loosening of restrictions on immigration to this country- basically an open border unless you're contagious, a terrorist, or a convicted felon. I know I won't get this in my lifetime, but what scares me is that we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. I'll be satisfied, for the moment, with some sort of path to citizenship for illegals.
As I understand it is the Immigration Act of 1990. Here is a summary. It was introduced by Ted Kennedy.

Just enforce the law. Or change it, and enforce that. But whatever we do, enforce the law we agree upon.

What is wrong with this law?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.

 
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.
Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?

 
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.
Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?
No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that?

I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.

 
The 1990 law - by Ted Kennedy - bumped up the amount of legal immigration from ~530K per year to 675K per year.

Say you pass a law that bumps that up to 1 million per year.

So what are you going to do to ensure that number is enforced?

 
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.
Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?
No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that?

I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.
Tim to hell with deportation, I agree. Stopping people at the border is not deportation. Do you agree with that?

 
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.
Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?
No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that?

I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.
Tim to hell with deportation, I agree. Stopping people at the border is not deportation. Do you agree with that?
Yes.

 
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.
Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?
No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that?

I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.
Tim to hell with deportation, I agree. Stopping people at the border is not deportation. Do you agree with that?
Yes.
How. Do You. Propose. That. Will. Be. Done?

 
The 1990 law - by Ted Kennedy - bumped up the amount of legal immigration from ~530K per year to 675K per year.

Say you pass a law that bumps that up to 1 million per year.

So what are you going to do to ensure that number is enforced?
Me? Nothing.
No kidding, it will be men who risk their lives doing it.
I don't want to see anyone risking their lives over this.
Ok you're living in a dream world, pun intended I guess.

Border duty is dangerous work. Men are already risking their lives. Hell immigrants risk their lives crossing because the border is not secure. If it was regulated it would be like crossing any normal border.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.
Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?
No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that?

I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.
Tim to hell with deportation, I agree. Stopping people at the border is not deportation. Do you agree with that?
Yes.
How. Do You. Propose. That. Will. Be. Done?
I. don't.

There's no way to stop people determined to sneak into this country. It's pointless to try. We should spend money helping our police to fight violent crime.

 
You are aware that all the statistics in your original post refer to immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants, right?

You've posted hundreds of times that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy, yet you've never once been able to show support for that notion. Sometimes you've posted stats showing immigrants are a net positive (which I've never analyzed, since that's not the question), sometimes you've posted stats showing the exact opposite of what you claim, but you have yet to post a serious analysis showing that illegal immigration is a net positive. Until you can do that, why should the rest of us continue to waste our time pointing out the flaws in the same statistics you keep posting? Similarly, why should the rest of us waste our time debating you when you refuse to acknowledge the articles, proof, and statistics that others bring to the table?

That said, it's also useless for anyone to actually propose a compromise solution here, as you've already stated you would never agree to any compromise that isn't complete amnesty and open borders for the future. Why should anyone talk about this with you again?

 
The 1990 law - by Ted Kennedy - bumped up the amount of legal immigration from ~530K per year to 675K per year.

Say you pass a law that bumps that up to 1 million per year.

So what are you going to do to ensure that number is enforced?
Me? Nothing.
No kidding, it will be men who risk their lives doing it.
I don't want to see anyone risking their lives over this.
Ok you're living in a dream world, pun intended I guess.

Border duty is dangerous work. Men are already risking their lives. Hell immigrants risk their lives crossing because the border is not secure. If it was regulated it would be like crossing any normal border.
I'm not living in a dream world. There's no way to make our borders secure enough to prevent illegal immigration unless you want to live in East Germany. And I don't.

If you want to reduce illegal immigration, there are only two ways to do it: either make legal immigration much more accessible (particularly to poor people from latin America), or have a sucky economy. I like the former better than the latter.

 
You are aware that all the statistics in your original post refer to immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants, right?

You've posted hundreds of times that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy, yet you've never once been able to show support for that notion. Sometimes you've posted stats showing immigrants are a net positive (which I've never analyzed, since that's not the question), sometimes you've posted stats showing the exact opposite of what you claim, but you have yet to post a serious analysis showing that illegal immigration is a net positive. Until you can do that, why should the rest of us continue to waste our time pointing out the flaws in the same statistics you keep posting? Similarly, why should the rest of us waste our time debating you when you refuse to acknowledge the articles, proof, and statistics that others bring to the table?

That said, it's also useless for anyone to actually propose a compromise solution here, as you've already stated you would never agree to any compromise that isn't complete amnesty and open borders for the future. Why should anyone talk about this with you again?
First off, while the ACLU prefers not to differentiate overall, the fact is that they do within the fact sheet. If you read it, you will note that they discuss the undocumented (illegal immigrants) in every point they make, and in fact they report that illegals are not less of a net positive on the economy than legal immigrants, but actually more so, for a variety of reasons. They are also less likely to be violent criminals, as I've pointed out. Illegals are a net positive, economically, socially, culturally. I don't ignore statistics to the contrary; there simply aren't any. But you're welcome to try to produce some.

As to your last point, I'm not any kind of decision maker, but yeah despite my convictions on this matter I'm willing to compromise. Are you?

 
Another day , another fishing trip by Tim . I used to take him seriously but now he's a caricature of himself

2016 is off to a bang :thumbup:

 
Here's more for you Rich:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

Illegal Immigrants benefit the economy

There are few subjects that evoke as much emotion as immigration reform, especially since future laws could result in a path to citizenship for over 11 million illegal immigrants.

When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top