Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

The migrant caravan

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Thankfully your type of thinking is not in power, otherwise we are a 3rd world country.

Joe, is it wrong for me to regard this as a racist comment? He’s basically saying that the more Latin Americans we take in, the more we will become a third world country. What inference should I take, if not a racist one? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lod001 said:

Thankfully your type of thinking is not in power, otherwise we are a 3rd world country.

You do realize that you way of thinking was extremely popular during large waves of immigration that occurred in the 1800s and early 1900s?  Any of your ancestors come from Ireland? Eastern or Southern Europe? 

https://reimaginingmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/nypl.digitalcollections.c146bf32-7fda-68d3-e040-e00a1806693f.001.w.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s say we have a change of heart and decide to grant asylum to most of these 4,000 people. How long until the next caravan is organized and how much larger would it be? And if that one was successful, what about the next? And the one after that?

We add over a million immigrants a year so a few thousand extra is certainly something that can be handled but I believe the numbers would explode past what would be manageable within a few years if we were practically open.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Let’s say we have a change of heart and decide to grant asylum to most of these 4,000 people. How long until the next caravan is organized and how much larger would it be? And if that one was successful, what about the next? And the one after that?

We add over a million immigrants a year so a few thousand extra is certainly something that can be handled but I believe the numbers would explode past what would be manageable within a few years if we were practically open.

There has never been a wave of refugees or immigrants that came to our country in which this exact same “slippery slope” argument wasn’t made. 

My simple answer to you is- We’re not a lifeboat and we’re nowhere near full. If that ever happens, then we can talk about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There has never been a wave of refugees or immigrants that came to our country in which this exact same “slippery slope” argument wasn’t made. 

My simple answer to you is- We’re not a lifeboat and we’re nowhere near full. If that ever happens, then we can talk about it. 

Which waves are you referring to? The Vietnamese? European waves in the 19th century? This wave would be quite different in many ways. And our country is different.

If we allowed open immigration (although with vetting) for any citizen from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, how many would you guess would come within 5 years? I understand it would be a wild guess. I think it would be multiple millions.

Even if we take all these in, what about those that want to come here from Asia, and Africa, and the Middle East and elsewhere? Do we limit those numbers? Open up to them too?

The lifeboat analogy is overly simplistic.  The larger the wave the more stresses we’d have on our social systems, at least in the short run.

We agree on the importance of immigration in our past and in our future. We just disagree at what pace might be sustainable. And perhaps about the numbers who want to come.

 

 

Edited by Juxtatarot
  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Joe, is it wrong for me to regard this as a racist comment? He’s basically saying that the more Latin Americans we take in, the more we will become a third world country. What inference should I take, if not a racist one? 

An economic one?  Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't automatically mean they are racist.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I've been having a different conversation than everyone else here, but I think the long road solution here is to invest into Central America, on their terms. Let's not tell them who to elect or what sort of government to have or say "hey we are gonna use you for our fake war on drugs". We'll just invest, give humanitarian aid, support local small businesses and with luck in a generation not a single Honduran or El Salvadorean will need to walk across Mexico to come to America because they have their own baller country to live in. We made this mess, let's clean it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

To me this really isn’t about the refugees anyhow. It’s about us. Who are we? What kind of country do we want to live in? 

Unlike many progressives I know (though not all) I am a big believer in American exceptionalism. I think we’re the greatest nation that ever existed in world history, and I could give you all the reasons why. Our treatment of refugees and immigrants throughout our history is one of the biggest reasons. My grandparents escaped Russian progroms and the Holocaust because the United States was willing to save them and accept them. When I stood next to the Statue of Liberty two years ago, I couldn’t help bawling. 

That’s one reason we’re the greatest country ever. Another reason is because we saved the world from tyranny. I have a great uncle who survived the Bataan Death March. My wife has cousins who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. The United States saved the world from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and later on Soviet Russia. We did. Without us the world falls apart and freedom dies. 

And now we have a President who, along with his supporters, wants to remove the two pillars that have made the USA special: our treatment of refugees and immigrants, and our international commitment to freedom. Some of us are determined not to let that happen. 

I'm all for setting up requirements for letting anyone that wants to come to this country to do so. But, do we do so for the sake of the immigrants or refugees, or for the good of the country?  I also see this as the "Little Red Hen". Now that we have something that everyone else wants, should we just allow anyone and everyone the ability to have it? The tired, poor and huddled masses was what built this country. But, does that mean that's what's best for our country to continue being the best?

I would argue whether or not we are the greatest country ever, or even at the present time. Our successes have not come without a price. In my opinion, the arrow hasn't been pointing up for quite some time. 

I would also ask if there is ever a point where we would draw the line on how many people we would allow into the country? Is there ever a point where it becomes an unmanageable population to feed and cloth. Not to mention the carbon footprint that each brings to an already stressed ecosystem. If you agree that we could reach a point where we have to say no, what are the parameters that would make you say no more?

I agree with others that we don't take care of our own. We have to many people in this country that go hungry or homeless. I fully understand that they are suffering these same things in other countries in addition to civil wars. Some may see us as the greatest country, but prosperity still eludes many. I wouldn't want to invite more people into this country only to see them go hungry and living in the streets. 

Finally, I respect the history or your family tree. Everyone has a story that brought their families to America. In the cases of Germany and Japan, it was only after we destroyed much of those countries that we were finally able to rebuild them. The circumstances were much different at that time. We had an obligation to protect the world from tyranny. It was obvious and military action was accepted by the world. We can't do that in most cases these days. I'm not sure what the answer is. But, I would much rather see other countries overcome their issues and build a better place so people don't have to walk thousands of miles just to survive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I know I've been having a different conversation than everyone else here, but I think the long road solution here is to invest into Central America, on their terms. Let's not tell them who to elect or what sort of government to have or say "hey we are gonna use you for our fake war on drugs". We'll just invest, give humanitarian aid, support local small businesses and with luck in a generation not a single Honduran or El Salvadorean will need to walk across Mexico to come to America because they have their own baller country to live in. We made this mess, let's clean it up.

Quite the utopian idea. I'm all for it but....yeah, it's a dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

Quite the utopian idea. I'm all for it but....yeah, it's a dream.

These governments are corrupt.  There’s really no way to invest in these countries until they fix that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jonessed said:

These governments are corrupt.  There’s really no way to invest in these countries until they fix that.

Says the guy supporting a President that is willing to sell the country’s values for some Saudi petrol dollars...nothing corrupt there :rolleyes:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jonessed said:

These governments are corrupt.  There’s really no way to invest in these countries until they fix that.

In many cases, we are responsible for putting these governments into power.   Do we have responsibility for that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -fish- said:

In many cases, we are responsible for putting these governments into power.   Do we have responsibility for that?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boots11234 said:

How about they stay in their country and fix it?

How would you suggest that they do that?   The people fleeing the country don't have food or money, let alone the means to fight gang violence or overthrow their governments.  That's sort of exactly why they're leaving.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

An economic one?  Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't automatically mean they are racist.

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shula-holic said:

An economic one?  Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't automatically mean they are racist.

It’s the way he disagreed. If you think that allowing  more Latin Americans in will turn us into a 3rd world country, I’m going to make certain assumptions. And they’re not economic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

It’s the way he disagreed. If you think that allowing  more Latin Americans in will turn us into a 3rd world country, I’m going to make certain assumptions. And they’re not economic. 

Over 400,000 people have immigrated from the UK over the last 20 years.  I'm sure they're equally outraged about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s the way he disagreed. If you think that allowing  more Latin Americans in will turn us into a 3rd world country, I’m going to make certain assumptions. And they’re not economic. 

Did I miss in his quote where he referred to their race?  When I hear someone use the phrase "third world country", I think of economics.  I don't think it's specific to a race.  I think of it more along the lines as we need immigration, yes.  But there isn't an unlimited amount of people we can take and not turn into, or become closer to, the situation they are trying to flee.  Which in my view is largely economic despair.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s the way he disagreed. If you think that allowing  more Latin Americans in will turn us into a 3rd world country, I’m going to make certain assumptions. And they’re not economic. 

there goes tim again.  Sees a racist wherever he looks.  I hope Trump puts troops at the border.  Oh have you noticed how the governments down there are doing whatever they can to stop it after trumps tweet?  They, and the rest of the world know that he means what he says. Refreshing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, boots11234 said:

there goes tim again.  Sees a racist wherever he looks.  I hope Trump puts troops at the border.  Oh have you noticed how the governments down there are doing whatever they can to stop it after trumps tweet?  They, and the rest of the world know that he means what he says. Refreshing. 

What has changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Well, at least you're honest about your complete lack of a moral compass.

We aren’t responsible for the corruption in Honduras and Guatemala.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stuart Ullman said:

This isn't about the money. This is about the disrespect these people show tearing down fences. This is about the disrespect these people show thinking they're entitled to illegally enter our country, because they say so.

This is about the disrespect that out all of the countries in North and South America, apparently, the United States is the only country that should be granting asylum. Not Mexico, the Houndouras, Guatamala. Nope. It "has" to be the United States for reasons unknown.

This is about the disrespect that if you disagree that all South Americans should be allowed illegal entry into the United States; that you're ignorant, a racist, a bigot, or xenophobic.

seeking asylum isn't entering the country illegally.   it's legal.  under our laws.  you know, rule of law and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

To me this really isn’t about the refugees anyhow. It’s about us. Who are we? What kind of country do we want to live in? 

Unlike many progressives I know (though not all) I am a big believer in American exceptionalism. I think we’re the greatest nation that ever existed in world history, and I could give you all the reasons why. Our treatment of refugees and immigrants throughout our history is one of the biggest reasons. My grandparents escaped Russian progroms and the Holocaust because the United States was willing to save them and accept them. When I stood next to the Statue of Liberty two years ago, I couldn’t help bawling. 

That’s one reason we’re the greatest country ever. Another reason is because we saved the world from tyranny. I have a great uncle who survived the Bataan Death March. My wife has cousins who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. The United States saved the world from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and later on Soviet Russia. We did. Without us the world falls apart and freedom dies. 

And now we have a President who, along with his supporters, wants to remove the two pillars that have made the USA special: our treatment of refugees and immigrants, and our international commitment to freedom. Some of us are determined not to let that happen. 

This is the actual Make America Great Again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Juxtatarot said:

The National Review (a right leaning source but one that I don’t believe tries to deceive) makes some interesting rebuttals to that study. You might find it interesting. Link

 

The author of that article is Steven Camarota, the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. The CIS is listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the SPLC.  Far right wingers hate the SPLC because they claim bias but they love libertarian far-right CATO institute so I'll use a quote from them.

CIS Critique

Quote

CIS reports have been widely criticized and debunked by groups such as the Immigration Policy Center and the CATO Institute. Alex Nowasteh, an Immigration Policy Analyst at CATO said in early 2017, "Oh, I'm convinced that [CIS executive director Mark Krikorian is] wrong about all the facts and issues. They're wrong about the impact of immigrants on the U.S. economy and on U.S. society.” 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

The author of that article is Steven Camarota, the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. The CIS is listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the SPLC.  Far right wingers hate the SPLC because they claim bias but they love libertarian far-right CATO institute so I'll use a quote from them.

CIS Critique

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

The author of that article is Steven Camarota, the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. The CIS is listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the SPLC.  Far right wingers hate the SPLC because they claim bias but they love libertarian far-right CATO institute so I'll use a quote from them.

CIS Critique

 

So no actual criticisms about the article itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sheriff Bart said:

Yeah but they were mostly white so its different. 

I know what you mean but the reality is the people who hated immigrants 150+ years ago didn't consider the Irish, Italian, Jewish and Eastern European immigrants  as "white".  Someday maybe everyone in this country will truly believe in "liberty and justice for all" but we're not there yet and probably not very close to it. These days it's just different ethnic/racial groups. To me the saddest part of that is people with my ethnic heritage, whose ancestors were discriminated against, make up a good portion of the people who are bigoted against the new immigrants. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dedfin said:

I know I've been having a different conversation than everyone else here, but I think the long road solution here is to invest into Central America, on their terms. Let's not tell them who to elect or what sort of government to have or say "hey we are gonna use you for our fake war on drugs". We'll just invest, give humanitarian aid, support local small businesses and with luck in a generation not a single Honduran or El Salvadorean will need to walk across Mexico to come to America because they have their own baller country to live in. We made this mess, let's clean it up.

This is an article I posted once before.  I think it is an excellent idea and I wish there was a way to implement it.  It would be expensive but the immigration problem at some point will get really expensive for our government.  I think when I posted before Tim said that it was a good idea but no way it could actually get done  for numerous reasons .  It is shame because it could probably work if we could overcome the obstacles.

 

Both The Left And Right Are Wrong On Immigration           

by JSB Morse

 

June 21, 2018

 

Featured Articles, Politics



 

Immigration has been a hot button issue since the inception of the United States, but it seems to have hit a particularly partisan critical mass since President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policyhas been implemented. Suddenly, the mainstream media has picked up on the illegal immigrant detention centers and, most notably, the separation of immigrant children from their parents once apprehended.

Never mind the fact that this has been going on at the border for decades under several presidents, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)-celebrant Barack Obama. And never mind that the outrage ignores (perhaps intentionally) the legality of the immigrants in question. Whether or not you think it should be illegal to cross a national border, it is in fact illegal and people who do illegal things typically have their children “taken away”, yet there’s no uproar about those anti-family policies.

The Trumpeters seem to be content with imprisoning hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to protect our economy, even if it means breaking up families while the offenders are in detention. After all, illegal immigration weighs us down and makes us poorer, they argue. If we had no social welfare programs that immigrants could take advantage of, open immigration could be an option, but until then, open borders means economic suicide.

On the other side, the left is outraged by the feds’ treatment of people who aren’t harming anyone. They demand that we loosen our immigration policy and at the very least figure out a way to keep families together. Migrants are a boon to our economy and even if they aren’t, we are wealthy enough to support their quest for a better life, they argue.

All of this partisan uproar has missed the point. Both sides are focusing on the symptom of illegal immigration and ignore the disease of horrifying economic conditions in the source of emigration.

Opening borders and bringing countless immigrants into the United States would wreck our economy and not do anything to fix the problem. Of course this is akin to the ‘eating the rich mentality’ that pervades socialists. It’s a self-destructive policy at best.

Similarly, building the biggest, most “hugely” wall on the planet and perpetuating the deportation cycle will put us further in debt and still not solve the problem.

The solution isn’t to keep them out of our economic promised land or to let them in; the solution is to give them their own economic promised land.

Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are areas in which business and trade laws are different from the rest of the country for the express purpose of improving the economy. Hong Kong is the quintessential example. The minimally-regulated British outpost off the coast of mainland China turned a resource-poor rock with a few thousand people to one of the world’s largest economies within a couple generations. It was so successful that China imitated the model several times throughout their country to varying degrees of success.

Several other jurisdictions have tried the idea, most notably Ireland, several African countries, and pertinent to the topic of American immigration: Honduras.

Some obstacles to these SEZs include initial capital and the willingness of the presiding jurisdiction to relinquish some authority. The idea to turn a relatively inhospitable part of a woefully impoverished country into a leading economic superpower within 50 years has to hold sway with even the most despotic government administrators. Of course, the problem is that once bureaucrats have power, it’s nearly impossible to get them to relinquish it.

The US could offer both seed money and political pressure to encourage the development of these zones. With the illegal immigration fight costing over $100 billion in the United States, it would behoove us to invest some of that in a real solution. President Trump, who recently tossed up the idea of a space military force, could take the lead in the only win-win policy. Instead of launching storm troopers, Trump should be launching economic missionaries.

America isn’t some magical place where money grows on trees. True, the country is resource-rich, but so is Venezuela and it’s rapidly becoming the financial toilet of the hemisphere due to its socialist economic policies. The United States is a destination for economic refugees mainly because of its free market system. We need to stop being reactive regarding immigration, and instead start promoting the system which is bringing people here, elsewhere.

It’s heartbreaking to see families broken up over a particularly arbitrary ruling. The children, especially, are victims of circumstance, not hardened criminals. Separating them from their families and putting them in cages is not going to fix the problem. But neither is opening our borders. Only when we improve the economic situation of the source countries can we hope to stem the flow of economic refugees and illegal immigrants into the United States. When that happens, perhaps we can have the conversation about turning one of our cities — say Detroit? — into a Special Economic Zone of our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

So no actual criticisms about the article itself?

I don't feel like I'm in a position to evaluate either the study which I haven't seen or the criticism of it by Camarota. CIS has earned a bad reputation and unless I see something from a reputable source supporting their research I feel free to believe anything from that organization is equal to something by David Duke. Even the right wing (Koch Brothers) Cato Institute trashes the CIS.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really appreciate the posts by Juxtatarot and Kcitons. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue by people of good will. I get that, I respect it. But there is also a lot of ugliness out there as well and I don’t mind calling it out when I see it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

France called. If we’re done with the statue, they want it back. 

Send it to them with the caravan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I really appreciate the posts by Juxtatarot and Kcitons. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue by people of good will. I get that, I respect it. But there is also a lot of ugliness out there as well and I don’t mind calling it out when I see it. 

Please take this sincerely and not as a jab.

I  have to ask this because this is in your backyard.  I just watched the Dateline on Skid Row in LA. Why are you not as passionate and emotional about that?  My wife and I were crying.

There are 55 thousand homeless in LA, another 15-20 thousand in surrounding areas like Venice.  These people are destitute. That is 75-80 thousand people in just that area.  I understand your were emotional about 4K migrants but they are 1200 miles away in another country and you have 75-80K of basically the same type living around you and nobody cares.  Start a topic on that and you will get no response because it is not a political hot button and skid row has been there forever. These are real people suffering.

I have said before I volunteer once a month in Detroit at a church that helps the homeless and needy and over the years I have turned on many people to do the same.

Detroit is bad but nowhere near the issues that LA has...but nobody cares.  If a POTUS bashed skid row then maybe people would care...very sad.

Please watch this.      https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/city-of-angels/3779455

Edited by Da Guru
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I really appreciate the posts by Juxtatarot and Kcitons. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue by people of good will. I get that, I respect it. But there is also a lot of ugliness out there as well and I don’t mind calling it out when I see it. 

Maybe the answer is to sponsor a refugee or their family.

I don't remember the specifics as I was too young. My Aunt and Uncle sponsored a family in the 70's from Vietnam. My Aunt and Uncle were a very giving couple (took in dozens of foster children and adopted 2 of them). I just remember the family living with them for a short time while they became acclimated. We visited them a couple of times once they finally got settled. My Mom still makes a Vietnamese egg roll that they taught our family to make.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Insomniac said:

I don't feel like I'm in a position to evaluate either the study which I haven't seen or the criticism of it by Camarota. CIS has earned a bad reputation and unless I see something from a reputable source supporting their research I feel free to believe anything from that organization is equal to something by David Duke. Even the right wing (Koch Brothers) Cato Institute trashes the CIS.

 

I know they have a bad reputation, but the article has very fair criticisms. Even if you dismiss exactly what it says but just use it as a guide to look at those sections, some things really stand out.

For example they picked certain date ranges. Lets ignore motive and look at the raw data. Do you think it is fair to compare two population sets that are so different in age? If 81% of one population is between the ages of 18-64 and the other is 63%, does that sound like good comparison groups? That has a major impact on 32% of the total expenditures. Refugees were represented at much lower %'s for these two expenses, but were represented at higher %'s for almost all others. More housing assistance, more snap, more medicare, more SSI, etc. 

In other words they cost more than the US population per capita with the exception of these two major areas which are 2nd and 3rd for overall expense and are enough to swing the pendulum. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I know they have a bad reputation, but the article has very fair criticisms. Even if you dismiss exactly what it says but just use it as a guide to look at those sections, some things really stand out.

For example they picked certain date ranges. Lets ignore motive and look at the raw data. Do you think it is fair to compare two population sets that are so different in age? If 81% of one population is between the ages of 18-64 and the other is 63%, does that sound like good comparison groups? That has a major impact on 32% of the total expenditures. Refugees were represented at much lower %'s for these two expenses, but were represented at higher %'s for almost all others. More housing assistance, more snap, more medicare, more SSI, etc. 

In other words they cost more than the US population per capita with the exception of these two major areas which are 2nd and 3rd for overall expense and are enough to swing the pendulum. 

 Why should I accept the analysis of someone that is one of the most important people in an organiation credibly accused of bigotry by both left and right wing organizations?  There's also opinions from both left and right wing organizations that show immigration is an economic positive.  Historically for the US, immigration has been a huge positive. (except for Native Americans) To a great extent our economic model requires a growing population that will not be supported by domestic birth rates. We need immigrants and the vast majority of them are going to have to be people of color.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Insomniac said:

 Why should I accept the analysis of someone that is one of the most important people in an organiation credibly accused of bigotry by both left and right wing organizations?  There's also opinions from both left and right wing organizations that show immigration is an economic positive.  Historically for the US, immigration has been a huge positive. (except for Native Americans) To a great extent our economic model requires a growing population that will not be supported by domestic birth rates. We need immigrants and the vast majority of them are going to have to be people of color.

 

So ignore the data that I just gave you which that guy doesnt even mention in his article and is directly from the report itself? 

Typical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

So ignore the data that I just gave you which that guy doesnt even mention in his article and is directly from the report itself? 

Typical. 

Yeah I'll ignore any "evidence" from a source that's a white supremist group. (CIS)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

So ignore the data that I just gave you which that guy doesnt even mention in his article and is directly from the report itself? 

Typical. 

Allow me..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insomniac said:

Yeah I'll ignore any "evidence" from a source that's a white supremist group. (CIS)

Unreal. That data isnt from them. It is from the report from the dept of health and human services. The article in national review mentions none of it. The article mentioned they cherry picked data. That made me look at the data. I now presented you the data and told you it was from the report itself. You can verify here. Even though we both know you won't.

So typical of you guys these days. I am sure the group will be along to high five your use of the talking points though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Para, personally I don’t believe in ignoring facts. It’s tough for me because I don’t believe the source, but I will read it again nonetheless. I doubt it will change my overall position, but perhaps it will help me understand yours better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Hi Para, personally I don’t believe in ignoring facts. It’s tough for me because I don’t believe the source, but I will read it again nonetheless. I doubt it will change my overall position, but perhaps it will help me understand yours better. 

You dont trust the new york times or the dept of health and human services????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Da Guru said:

Please take this sincerely and not as a jab.

I  have to ask this because this is in your backyard.  I just watched the Dateline on Skid Row in LA. Why are you not as passionate and emotional about that?  My wife and I were crying.

There are 55 thousand homeless in LA, another 15-20 thousand in surrounding areas like Venice.  These people are destitute. That is 75-80 thousand people in just that area.  I understand your were emotional about 4K migrants but they are 1200 miles away in another country and you have 75-80K of basically the same type living around you and nobody cares.  Start a topic on that and you will get no response because it is not a political hot button and skid row has been there forever. These are real people suffering.

I have said before I volunteer once a month in Detroit at a church that helps the homeless and needy and over the years I have turned on many people to do the same.

Detroit is bad but nowhere near the issues that LA has...but nobody cares.  If a POTUS bashed skid row then maybe people would care...very sad.

Please watch this.      https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/city-of-angels/3779455

Thanks Da Guru. I am concerned about Skid Row and I try to help when I’m able. I care very much about it. But I don’t think things have to be either-or. I have never accepted the argument “let’s help our own first.” I say let’s help our own, and help others, and help others still. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

You dont trust the new york times or the dept of health and human services????

I meant I didn’t believe the CiS. I suspect they fashion the statistics they report in such a way as to misrepresent them. And/or they fail to report additional facts that give the information greater context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I meant I didn’t believe the CiS. I suspect they fashion the statistics they report in such a way as to misrepresent them. And/or they fail to report additional facts that give the information greater context. 

When I posted this

Quote

 

If 81% of one population is between the ages of 18-64 and the other is 63%, does that sound like good comparison groups? That has a major impact on 32% of the total expenditures. Refugees were represented at much lower %'s for these two expenses, but were represented at higher %'s for almost all others. More housing assistance, more snap, more medicare, more SSI, etc. 

In other words they cost more than the US population per capita with the exception of these two major areas which are 2nd and 3rd for overall expense and are enough to swing the pendulum. 

 

I didnt take any of that from the CIS or the article written for the national review. The national review article made different points about how they cherry picked the year range. It did seem odd the range they chose so that made me actually go look at the report in the new york times article. I found those %'s and that info. I did the math. 

ETA: Now in like 5 subsequent posts between you, insomniac, and officer tanner you all are just criticizing the CIS. Its super annoying.

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.