Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[StrikeS2k]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

Just what I thought.

The facts are out there dude. But if you think I'm going to waste my Saturday night looking for them on the Internet (I got them from books and articles) then you have another thing coming. You're welcome to do the work if you like.

Agreed. We will give you until Monday so you can enjoy the weekend.

 

[Christo]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

Just what I thought.

The facts are out there dude. But if you think I'm going to waste my Saturday night looking for them on the Internet (I got them from books and articles) then you have another thing coming. You're welcome to do the work if you like.

I guaran-#######-tee you there is no income or asset requirement to enter the U.S.

 

[timschochet]

LOL at "we". As of you and Christo are my judges deciding whether or not I have a case. No thanks.

I should think common sense would tell anyone that poverty stricken people don't have nearly the same chance to get into this country legally as do those who have money or a job waiting for them. But if you don't want to believe that, look up the facts for yourself.

 

[Politician Spock]

LOL at "we". As of you and Christo are my judges deciding whether or not I have a case. No thanks.

I should think common sense would tell anyone that poverty stricken people don't have nearly the same chance to get into this country legally as do those who have money or a job waiting for them. But if you don't want to believe that, look up the facts for yourself.

Is there some US law that requires the chances to be the same?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Christo, why don't you study legal immigration from Latin American countries, see what the economic status is of those who apply, and find out how many poverty stricken people ever get in. Then get back to me.

Just what I thought.

The facts are out there dude. But if you think I'm going to waste my Saturday night looking for them on the Internet (I got them from books and articles) then you have another thing coming. You're welcome to do the work if you like.

You do not remotely understand what a fact is.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So the facts, things which are immutable, went from "No Shot", "no line", to there being a line most (so some can) never stand in, to an unequal % of poverty stricken apps accepted per the representative %. The best part while you tout your "facts", often with impatient and unnecessary capitalization, you are denigrating or condescending of those who actually understand what a fact is, and have their facts correct. Keep advocating, you damage your side of an argument every time you do.

 

[timschochet]

Fine. A quick search of the internet came up with this:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061127230720AA5drBH

What does it take to legally Immigrate (from Mexico)?

They need to apply for permanent residency through:
1. Jobs sponsorship. The chance of a poor Mexican getting this is very very low, cause most of the jobs being sponsored are high tech jobs that require high education levels.
2. Lottery. There are only 50,000 spots a year for the whole world. So you can just imagine how winning this is is not very easy. But I know a lot of people who have gotten PR's first time applying.
3. Political Asylum. Since Mexico is not considered to be a dangerous place to live compared to say Darfur, their application might be rejected.

And this:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100523121438AAq41Wc

Unless you are a rich Mexican, who isn't interested in leaving Mexico, most Mexicans have no possibility of legally entering the US

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[Christo]

So there's a lottery for 50,000 people every single year. So every single person who wants to come has as good a chance as every other person who wants to come for one of the 50,000 spots every single year. Yeah, shame on us!

 

[mr roboto]

Wait, why do we want poor, unemployed uneducated immigrants? Wouldn't we desire those who are educated, have a US employer ready to hire and can immediately contribute economic benefit?

 

[timschochet]

Wait, why do we want poor, unemployed uneducated immigrants? Wouldn't we desire those who are educated, have a US employer ready to hire and can immediately contribute economic benefit?

That's a separate argument and you're quite welcome to make it. My only point was that most of those who are illegal have virtually NO chance to legally immigrate, so this whole "Why don't they get in line like everybody else?" meme is total crap.

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.)

 

[timschochet]

So there's a lottery for 50,000 people every single year. So every single person who wants to come has as good a chance as every other person who wants to come for one of the 50,000 spots every single year. Yeah, shame on us!

It's not a question of shame. My only point is that almost all of those who come to this country illegally have no chance to come to this country legally.

 

[Rich Conway]

Illegals can't apply for a green card, then subsequently apply for citizenship?

No.

Why not? I'm honestly asking here.

This is one of the most important misconceptions to demystify. Undocumented immigrants who are already in the country cannot apply for any sort of legal status. If they wish to apply for legal status, they have to return to their country of origin, serve their bar (about 10 years), and then go through the entire process. The two main exceptions to this are if the person overstayed a visa originally, as opposed to entering illegally, and if the person becomes married to a US citizen.

Ah, so they can, then.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm struggling reconciling 50,000 and "no".

 

[humpback]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

 

[Christo]

So there's a lottery for 50,000 people every single year. So every single person who wants to come has as good a chance as every other person who wants to come for one of the 50,000 spots every single year. Yeah, shame on us!

It's not a question of shame. My only point is that almost all of those who come to this country illegally have no chance to come to this country legally.

They have 50,000 chances every-single-year.

 

[Christo]

Let me amend that to "at least 50,000 chances every-single-year."

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

 

[timschochet]

$11.2 billion—The 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.

 

[Christo]

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.

 

[Christo]

$11.2 billion—The 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.

How much did they cost?

 

[humpback]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

So you're sticking with these are "facts"?

 

[timschochet]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

So you're sticking with these are "facts"?

They are statistics offered by the Center For American Progress. They come from various reputable sources. Yes I believe them to be facts.

 

[timschochet]

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.)

 

[Christo]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

So you're sticking with these are "facts"?

They are statistics offered by the Center For American Progress. They come from various reputable sources. Yes I believe them to be facts.

Projections about future events are not facts.

HTH

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

 

[humpback]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

So you're sticking with these are "facts"?

They are statistics offered by the Center For American Progress. They come from various reputable sources. Yes I believe them to be facts.

 

[timschochet]

$11.2 billion—The 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.

How much did they cost?

That is a highly disputed issue.

Here is an article which discusses both sides:

http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/What_Is_The_True_Cost_Of_Illegal_Immigration_161355085.html

Personally, I have long held that illegal immigrants are a net benefit. But that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion on my part. I have offered studies here, and articles, mostly from libertarian sources, which agree with me. But that doesn't make them correct. There are no DEFINITIVE facts on this one way or the other.

 

[timschochet]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

So you're sticking with these are "facts"?

They are statistics offered by the Center For American Progress. They come from various reputable sources. Yes I believe them to be facts.

Projections about future events are not facts.

HTH

Of the 6 "statistics" listed there, three are projections which I believe to be true. The other 3 are presented as statement of fact which I believe to be true.

 

[Kevrunner]

Tim, it doesn't make any sense for the losing countries to let their citizens illegally come to the United States if they are such a financial benefit. Looks like they would be doing everything possible to keep them from coming instead of looking the other way. We do not need slave labor, we do not need low paying jobs. We will always have them though because people like you accept it.

 

[Christo]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what a "fact" is.

Yeah, yeah, you're repeating DW.

Which of these numbers do you dispute and what statistics do you have to contradict it?

So you're sticking with these are "facts"?

They are statistics offered by the Center For American Progress. They come from various reputable sources. Yes I believe them to be facts.

Projections about future events are not facts.

HTH

Of the 6 "statistics" listed there, three are projections which I believe to be true. The other 3 are presented as statement of fact which I believe to be true.

Technically, only one is a statement of fact--the 2010 tax figure. At best, they other two look like estimated or average costs.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, it doesn't make any sense for the losing countries to let their citizens illegally come to the United States if they are such a financial benefit. Looks like they would be doing everything possible to keep them from coming instead of looking the other way. We do not need slave labor, we do not need low paying jobs. We will always have them though because people like you accept it.

Of course we do.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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?

im guessing around 7.046 billion

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

 

[timschochet]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

 

[Christo]

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.

 

[Christo]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Link?

 

[timschochet]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Link?

http://www.migrationinformation.org/article/immigrants-united-states-and-current-economic-crisis/

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Directly related to economic needs would mean the number of illegals has NOTHING to do with circumstances they are trying to escape.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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.

This Land Is Your Land

Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

This land is your land This land is my land

From California to the New York island;

From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and Me.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway,

I saw above me that endless skyway:

I saw below me that golden valley:

This land was made for you and me.

I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps

To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;

And all around me a voice was sounding:

This land was made for you and me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,

And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,

As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:

This land was made for you and me.

As I went walking I saw a sign there

And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."

But on the other side it didn't say nothing,

That side was made for you and me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,

By the relief office I seen my people;

As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking

Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me,

As I go walking that freedom highway;

Nobody living can ever make me turn back

This land was made for you and me.

 

[timschochet]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Directly related to economic needs would mean the number of illegals has NOTHING to do with circumstances they are trying to escape.

That depends on the situation.

The study that I just linked divides illegal immigrants into two categories- those seeking economic betterment ("unauthorized migrants") and those fleeing their home countries for humanitarian reasons ("humanitarian migrants.") The latter group, which includes the children which are the subject of this thread, are likely to be unaffected by the economic conditions in the USA. But these represent the minority. The ones seeking economic betterment are the majority, and the statistics clearly demonstrate that their numbers surge when times are good, flatline when times are normal, and decrease when times are bad.

 

[Christo]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Link?

http://www.migrationinformation.org/article/immigrants-united-states-and-current-economic-crisis/

You need to read that again. It doesn't say what you say it does.

 

[timschochet]

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.

This Land Is Your Land

Words and Music by Woody Guthrie

This land is your land This land is my land

From California to the New York island;

From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters

This land was made for you and Me.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway,

I saw above me that endless skyway:

I saw below me that golden valley:

This land was made for you and me.

I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps

To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;

And all around me a voice was sounding:

This land was made for you and me.

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,

And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,

As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:

This land was made for you and me.

As I went walking I saw a sign there

And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."

But on the other side it didn't say nothing,

That side was made for you and me.

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,

By the relief office I seen my people;

As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking

Is this land made for you and me?

Nobody living can ever stop me,

As I go walking that freedom highway;

Nobody living can ever make me turn back

This land was made for you and me.

Woody was a socialist and an anarchist. He did write a brilliant song in support of migrant workers ("Deportees/Plane Wreck At Los Gatos"). But I support open immigration for reasons of capitalism.

 

[timschochet]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Link?

http://www.migrationinformation.org/article/immigrants-united-states-and-current-economic-crisis/

You need to read that again. It doesn't say what you say it does.

There is a clear decline during bad economic times.

The theory that the flow of illegal immigration is directly related to economic conditions is certainly not new. I can recommend you books on the subject, and studies by the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation, if you're really interested (though I suspect you're not.)

 

[timschochet]

DEPORTEES
by Woody Guthrie

The crops are all in and the peaches are rotting
The oranges are filed in their creosote dumps
They're flying 'em back to the Mexico border
To take all their money to wade back again
Goodbye to my Juan, farewell Roselita
Adios mes amigos, Jesus e Maria
You won't have a name when you ride the big airplane
All they will call you will be deportees
My father's own father, he waded that river
They took all the money he made in his life
It's six hundred miles to the Mexico border
And they chased them like rustlers, like outlaws, like thieves
The skyplane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon
The great ball of fire it shook all our hills
Who are these dear friends who are falling like dry leaves?
Radio said, "They are just deportees"
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can raise our good crops?
To fall like dry leaves and rot on out topsoil
And be known by no names except "deportees"

 

[Christo]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Link?

http://www.migrationinformation.org/article/immigrants-united-states-and-current-economic-crisis/

You need to read that again. It doesn't say what you say it does.

There is a clear decline during bad economic times.

The theory that the flow of illegal immigration is directly related to economic conditions is certainly not new. I can recommend you books on the subject, and studies by the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation, if you're really interested (though I suspect you're not.)

Do they say something the article you posted doesn't? Because it doesn't say what you say it does.

 

[Politician Spock]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Directly related to economic needs would mean the number of illegals has NOTHING to do with circumstances they are trying to escape.

That depends on the situation.The study that I just linked divides illegal immigrants into two categories- those seeking economic betterment ("unauthorized migrants") and those fleeing their home countries for humanitarian reasons ("humanitarian migrants.") The latter group, which includes the children which are the subject of this thread, are likely to be unaffected by the economic conditions in the USA. But these represent the minority. The ones seeking economic betterment are the majority, and the statistics clearly demonstrate that their numbers surge when times are good, flatline when times are normal, and decrease when times are bad.

So it depends, but is directly related?

 

[timschochet]

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?

The number of illegal immigrants in this country is directly related to economic need. As our economy grows, we need more. Typically the more illegals that are here, the better off we are. When the economy's tight, the number of illegals tend to dwindle.

Directly related to economic needs would mean the number of illegals has NOTHING to do with circumstances they are trying to escape.

That depends on the situation.The study that I just linked divides illegal immigrants into two categories- those seeking economic betterment ("unauthorized migrants") and those fleeing their home countries for humanitarian reasons ("humanitarian migrants.") The latter group, which includes the children which are the subject of this thread, are likely to be unaffected by the economic conditions in the USA. But these represent the minority. The ones seeking economic betterment are the majority, and the statistics clearly demonstrate that their numbers surge when times are good, flatline when times are normal, and decrease when times are bad.

So it depends, but is directly related?

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