Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Sometimes these labels are silly. My views on immigration and the minimum wage (which are related to one another) were originally formed when I read a series of articles some time ago by a guy named Tibor Machan, who called himself a libertarian (small l). The articles were published in Reason magazine in the 1980s under the title "The Case for Free Trade and Open Borders". I have since modified my views from Machan to some degree, in that I'm not in favor of doing anything that cause chaos: for instance while I firmly believe minimum wage is harmful, at this point it's more harmful to get rid of it. Open borders is a dream which I'll never live to see and wouldn't impose it on an unaccepting public.

But contrary to Walking Boot's assertion my views are far removed from those of La Raza. La Raza is radically concerned with the rights of Latino peoples. I don't care who the immigrants are and I don't care about ethnic rights at all, only individual rights.

 

[drummer]

 

[drummer]

Somehow the immigration issue is all about a some dude who isn't even an immgrant.

Jeebus, what a tool.

 

[drummer]

Here is a clue: POSTING ABOUT ANYTHING POLITICAL ON A MESSAGE BOARD DOES NOT MAKE YOU ACTIVE POLITICALLY.

Sheesh.

 

[skol asylum]

Now imagine all these mexican illegals not only took our jobs but also pushed us off our lands and onto reservations. These current day illegals are weak sauce.

 

[drummer]

Hold on: tim logged back in as Jim11.

 

[timschochet]

Hold on: tim logged back in as Jim11.

Now you're just trying to insult me. I could ignore all your other slights, but this...

 

[rockaction]

Sometimes these labels are silly. My views on immigration and the minimum wage (which are related to one another) were originally formed when I read a series of articles some time ago by a guy named Tibor Machan, who called himself a libertarian (small l). The articles were published in Reason magazine in the 1980s under the title "The Case for Free Trade and Open Borders". I have since modified my views from Machan to some degree, in that I'm not in favor of doing anything that cause chaos: for instance while I firmly believe minimum wage is harmful, at this point it's more harmful to get rid of it. Open borders is a dream which I'll never live to see and wouldn't impose it on an unaccepting public.

But contrary to Walking Boot's assertion my views are far removed from those of La Raza. La Raza is radically concerned with the rights of Latino peoples. I don't care who the immigrants are and I don't care about ethnic rights at all, only individual rights.

So you sort of side with the winning intellectuals of the day. Reason in the '80s was killing it. I'd bet there are neocon leanings in the nineties, James Q. Wilson and Irving Kristol in the seventies...correct me if I'm wrong here -- and I may very well be.

Tibor Machan is also an adamant Randian, so there's that. I respectfully watched his interviews over at reason.tv a while back, and he, like most other libertarians, will never quite shake her, nor will she ever shake libertarianism. It's a bizarrely odd couple, those two.

 

[timschochet]

I loved Ayn Rand. I know she's easy to criticize but she was a great novelist and was one of the few people in popular culture to celebrate capitalism as a noble ideal. My problem with her and other libertarians is that they tend to be too dogmatic, too absolutist. We don't live in a perfect world, and there's no way to get there from here.

 

[rockaction]

I loved Ayn Rand. I know she's easy to criticize but she was a great novelist and was one of the few people in popular culture to celebrate capitalism as a noble ideal. My problem with her and other libertarians is that they tend to be too dogmatic, too absolutist. We don't live in a perfect world, and there's no way to get there from here.

Reason is cautiously optimistic about this amnesty, still. I think they're also slightly warning those on the Red Team/Blue Team divide that this amnesty, while probably legal, is an unprecedented expansion of the executive branch. So we should expect marches in the streets in the name of ANSWER or something like it in 2018 or so.

As far as Rand, I loved Anthem and her unyielding devotion to individualism. Her problems were large, her personality and technical philosophy really dogmatic and slightly odious, her influence great. On a personal note, somewhat tangential: The four books I read that shaped my political opinions (Anthem, Brave New World, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451) were all inspired by Zamyatin's "We," which I didn't read until my early twenties, and is so far over my head in terms of the math involved, that I just won't ever fully understand it. But such a worthy book to have read, if just to see the influences of him resonating in the twentieth century.

But back to amnesty. Thanks for listening.

 

[drummer]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

 

[drummer]

Hold on: tim logged back in as Jim11.

Now you're just trying to insult me. I could ignore all your other slights, but this...

You're a pretentious bore who knows nothing about what you think you know. You're just like Jim11, both who need a hobby.

 

[rockaction]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

 

[drummer]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

 

[drummer]

This is all you need to know about immigration:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/c-note.jpg

That's it. Just ask the Ag business.

Sheesh.

 

[rockaction]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

 

[drummer]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

Look, I've printed out and read lot's of Cato studies on immigration, and it all boils down to $$. You don't need Cato to figure this out, since immigration has been happening in my state for decades. Successfully as well. The Brasero program to start. Hell, a flagship Marriott hotel benefits from it. Does Ayn Rand fit into this?

 

[drummer]

Seriously, Ayn Rand is for bong hits when you're out of Noam Chomsky in your early 20's, trying to get into that hot commie chick's pants.

Sheesh.

 

[rockaction]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

Look, I've printed out and read lot's of Cato studies on immigration, and it all boils down to $$. You don't need Cato to figure this out, since immigration has been happening in my state for decades. Successfully as well. The Brasero program to start. Hell, a flagship Marriott hotel benefits from it. Does Ayn Rand fit into this?

No, I think I get it. But what about union protectionism and low-skilled wage labor vs. the libertarian right as the original problem?

When viewed through that prism, monetary savings from cheap labor is a theoretical position.

As far as the Bracero program, it seems both dynamics are at work here. From Wiki: The program was voted out of existence by Congress in 1964, under mounting criticism for exploiting Mexican workers and depriving American workers of jobs.

So certainly LBJ and his nascent Great Society program, admixed with concerns from the left about exploitation had something to do with curtailing legal contract immigration, no?

 

[drummer]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

Look, I've printed out and read lot's of Cato studies on immigration, and it all boils down to $$. You don't need Cato to figure this out, since immigration has been happening in my state for decades. Successfully as well. The Brasero program to start. Hell, a flagship Marriott hotel benefits from it. Does Ayn Rand fit into this?

No, I think I get it. But what about union protectionism and low-skilled wage labor vs. the libertarian right as the original problem?

When viewed through that prism, monetary savings from cheap labor is a theoretical position.

As far as the Bracero program, it seems both dynamics are at work here. From Wiki: The program was voted out of existence by Congress in 1964, under mounting criticism for exploiting Mexican workers and depriving American workers of jobs.

So certainly LBJ and his nascent Great Society program, admixed with concerns from the left about exploitation had something to do with curtailing legal contract immigration, no?

My buddy's Father came through the Brasero program, my buddy graduated from Cal-Poly, has his Master's in Urban Planning, built a lot of the city of Pomona....

That's not exploitation at all.

 

[timschochet]

Can't even believe I'm up this late. You know what Drummer, you're the pretentious one not me. You come late in the game and insult everyone who has an opinion and then offer yourself up as the only one who knows anything when in truth you don't know crap. You've done it again and again on a variety of subjects. You're incredibly rude, incredibly full of ####. Good night!

 

[rockaction]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

Look, I've printed out and read lot's of Cato studies on immigration, and it all boils down to $$. You don't need Cato to figure this out, since immigration has been happening in my state for decades. Successfully as well. The Brasero program to start. Hell, a flagship Marriott hotel benefits from it. Does Ayn Rand fit into this?

No, I think I get it. But what about union protectionism and low-skilled wage labor vs. the libertarian right as the original problem?

When viewed through that prism, monetary savings from cheap labor is a theoretical position.

As far as the Bracero program, it seems both dynamics are at work here. From Wiki: The program was voted out of existence by Congress in 1964, under mounting criticism for exploiting Mexican workers and depriving American workers of jobs.

So certainly LBJ and his nascent Great Society program, admixed with concerns from the left about exploitation had something to do with curtailing legal contract immigration, no?

My buddy's Father came through the Brasero program, my buddy graduated from Cal-Poly, has his Master's in Urban Planning, built a lot of the city of Pomona....

That's not exploitation at all.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the original seeds of conflict probably go back to union protectionism vs. the American libertarian right. This was Perot and the "giant sucking sound" of NAFTA, remember? These two symbiotic concerns have always been the tension, right?

 

[drummer]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

Look, I've printed out and read lot's of Cato studies on immigration, and it all boils down to $$. You don't need Cato to figure this out, since immigration has been happening in my state for decades. Successfully as well. The Brasero program to start. Hell, a flagship Marriott hotel benefits from it. Does Ayn Rand fit into this?

No, I think I get it. But what about union protectionism and low-skilled wage labor vs. the libertarian right as the original problem?

When viewed through that prism, monetary savings from cheap labor is a theoretical position.

As far as the Bracero program, it seems both dynamics are at work here. From Wiki: The program was voted out of existence by Congress in 1964, under mounting criticism for exploiting Mexican workers and depriving American workers of jobs.

So certainly LBJ and his nascent Great Society program, admixed with concerns from the left about exploitation had something to do with curtailing legal contract immigration, no?

My buddy's Father came through the Brasero program, my buddy graduated from Cal-Poly, has his Master's in Urban Planning, built a lot of the city of Pomona....

That's not exploitation at all.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the original seeds of conflict probably go back to union protectionism vs. the American libertarian right. This was Perot and the "giant sucking sound" of NAFTA, remember? These two symbiotic concerns have always been the tension, right?

What the hell does Perot have to do with this? He's in the "Where are they now?" file.

 

[rockaction]

Ayn Rand and Reason has nothing to do with this. The more you guys try to talk immigration, I mean, immigration from the Brasero program to today is just pure masturbation.

Seriously, this is the dumbest conversation I've read, and it shows you know nothing on the ground level. LOL, try talking to an immigrant from Guatemala about Ayn Rand.

My people would not only laugh at you, but kick you in the pants at the same time.

White people.

Huh? It's each person's own political story brought to bear.

What does that have to do with a person who wants a Green Card?

Same thing it has to do with a person who wants to be out of jail because a lot of people somewhere decided that drugs are illegal for policy reasons.

There's a theoretical underpinning to most of this stuff, but you're smart enough to know that. Merely saying that one "wants" doesn't cut it. We live in a generally majoritarian society with majoritarian rules, and convincing on theoretical grounds is a large part of the battle.

Look, I've printed out and read lot's of Cato studies on immigration, and it all boils down to $$. You don't need Cato to figure this out, since immigration has been happening in my state for decades. Successfully as well. The Brasero program to start. Hell, a flagship Marriott hotel benefits from it. Does Ayn Rand fit into this?

No, I think I get it. But what about union protectionism and low-skilled wage labor vs. the libertarian right as the original problem?

When viewed through that prism, monetary savings from cheap labor is a theoretical position.

As far as the Bracero program, it seems both dynamics are at work here. From Wiki: The program was voted out of existence by Congress in 1964, under mounting criticism for exploiting Mexican workers and depriving American workers of jobs.

So certainly LBJ and his nascent Great Society program, admixed with concerns from the left about exploitation had something to do with curtailing legal contract immigration, no?

My buddy's Father came through the Brasero program, my buddy graduated from Cal-Poly, has his Master's in Urban Planning, built a lot of the city of Pomona....

That's not exploitation at all.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the original seeds of conflict probably go back to union protectionism vs. the American libertarian right. This was Perot and the "giant sucking sound" of NAFTA, remember? These two symbiotic concerns have always been the tension, right?

What the hell does Perot have to do with this? He's in the "Where are they now?" file.

I'm trying to trace the intellectual history of the immigration debate through anecdotal evidence. Perot was an example of economic nationalism. He opposed free trade and open immigration. This is why people viewed Clinton back in '92 as tacking to the right (well, that and Sister Souljah). This is also something that Jesse Walker of reason pointed out about Rust Belt states in his obituary of James Traficant recently -- that there's a weird mixture of civil libertarianism but economic protectionism that has been endemic to manufacturing areas of America.

These areas vote representatives to our gov't.

Not everything is CA, if I may humbly suggest that. Not everything is agriculture and border access. Some people actually do claim that "They took our jobs." It comes from the left as far as economics goes, and the right was the intellectual forebear -- either for reasons of colonialism or enlightenment -- of the antithesis of this particular argument.

 

[drummer]

^^^^^

What a fussilade of bullcrap.

It's about getting **** to market. The Ag business is tired of Congress and the Senate screwing things up. They were going to pull the trigger despite them. It isn't about unskilled labor either. One big grower said that they own equipment worth millions of dollars, and the immigrants who operate them do it with tremendous skill. Hell, immigrants are the ones making drilling wells into the aquafer in Central California, not some hot shot engineer.

It's about getting your **** to market. It's as old as the US itself.

 

[Mario Kart]

I have no problem with what Obama did this week.

I also have no problem making citizenship "a little" easier for the people that want it and are here for the right reasons.

I do have a problem with Congress whining and moaning about this. They are the people who make laws, yet, they refuse to make them. Our government does give the President authority to act if Congress chooses to sit on its hands... which is what they have done. Don't blame Obama... blame Congress.

The United States is an ever growing community with "the melting pot" of culture from around the world. I'm definitely not an Isolationist but it sounds like people on this board who say one thing or another about "our way of life" or "the American culture is getting screwed" have the idea of America backwards. That is why our country is great. We allow people to be people no matter where they are from.

- Footnote - I'm in Wisconsin and I've voted for Walker the last three elections. So, don't claim I am some bleeding heart liberal cause I am definitely not.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Excellent rundown of how Republican political choices (which are clearly winning) helped facilitate poor policy from a conservative point of view on ACA, spending, climate change and, now, immigration.

ETA: if Dems win in 2016 and the candidate has coattails Republicans might look back and regret not compromising when they had the chance. Certainly a new Democratic president won't wait around like Obama did.

If 2016 delivers a Republican president they'll have been totally successful and will end up getting much better outcomes than they could have gotten from Obama. High risk, high reward.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I loved Ayn Rand.

Stop.

 

[Sand]

You're a pretentious bore who knows nothing about what you think you know. You're just like Jim11, both who need a hobby.

This is his hobby.

 

[timschochet]

You're a pretentious bore who knows nothing about what you think you know. You're just like Jim11, both who need a hobby.

This is his hobby.

One of them anyhow .

 

[Jim11]

Can't even believe I'm up this late. You know what Drummer, you're the pretentious one not me. You come late in the game and insult everyone who has an opinion and then offer yourself up as the only one who knows anything when in truth you don't know crap. You've done it again and again on a variety of subjects. You're incredibly rude, incredibly full of ####. Good night!

I learned what you posted a long time ago. Not possible to have a civil discussion...best thing to do is just ignore him.

 

[Mario Kart]

There are three reasons we don’t get action from Congress on this.

So, blame Congress for looking out for themselves instead of the country. Obama "fixed" a temporary issue by still giving Congress plenty of leg room to enact new laws. Sometimes a President has to do what a President has to do since Congress is too chicken #### to do anything.

 

[Sand]

There are three reasons we don’t get action from Congress on this.

So, blame Congress for looking out for themselves instead of the country. Obama "fixed" a temporary issue by still giving Congress plenty of leg room to enact new laws. Sometimes a President has to do what a President has to do since Congress is too chicken #### to do anything.

You mean like those hundreds of bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk?

 

[squistion]

There are three reasons we don’t get action from Congress on this.

So, blame Congress for looking out for themselves instead of the country. Obama "fixed" a temporary issue by still giving Congress plenty of leg room to enact new laws. Sometimes a President has to do what a President has to do since Congress is too chicken #### to do anything.

You mean like those hundreds of bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk?

Misleading and rated "half true" according to Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/

Are these bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action"?

Resolving this claim is murkier.

First, a technical problem. It’s an oversimplification to say that these bills are "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk." Many have been assigned to committees, where they would need to be approved before being taken up on the floor. While Reid has influence over what committee chairs do, a chair can -- using their own powers -- decide to either fast-track or stall a bill coming over from the House.

Another complication: In at least some cases, the Senate is working on a bill on the same topic, but without using the House bill as a starting point. "The disposition of a House bill is not particularly relevant to measuring Senate legislative activity," said Steven Smith, political scientist and Senate specialist at Washington University in St. Louis.

We should also note that in the Senate, one member -- either from the majority or the minority -- can stop a bill in its tracks by threatening to filibuster -- a delay that requires 60 votes to break. Reasonable people can disagree about whether Reid or Senate Republicans are the biggest offenders -- we previously addressed some of those issues -- but the experts we checked with said both parties share at least some of the blame. [...].

[...] Our ruling

Jenkins said that in the "do-nothing Senate," there are 352 House bills "sitting on Harry Reid’s desk awaiting action," including 55 introduced by Democrats.

In some cases, committee chairs -- not Reid -- may be blocking or moving slowly on these bills. In other cases, senators are working on their own alternative bills on the same topic. Meanwhile, the claim oversells the degree of bipartisanship in the House; a majority of the Democratic-sponsored bills she cites are relatively minor pieces of legislation.

Ultimately, Jenkins places all the blame on the Democrats and the Senate, but experts agree that it takes two to tango. Both parties and chambers have played a role in creating the current legislative dysfunction. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.

 

[jonessed]

So Reid or the Democrat committee chairs?

 

[jon_mx]

So Reid or the Democrat committee chairs?

And then when the GOP is in control, and puts bills on Obama's desk to sign, it will still be a do-nothing GOP congress since Obama does not like the bills. Democrats are blameless. More accurately, shameless.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

at the idea that John Boehner sets the Senate agenda.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

at the idea that John Boehner sets the Senate agenda.

Unfortunately the Senate doesn't have an agenda at all...

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

at the idea that John Boehner sets the Senate agenda.

Unfortunately the Senate doesn't have an agenda at all...

Sure it does. Both sides always have an agenda.

Republicans want to block Democratic initiatives (using the filibuster in the Senate) and Democrats want to block Republican initiatives (by not taking up House bills). Here in another few months it'll be the Dems using the filibuster and veto while Republicans pass all kids of stuff that has no chance of being signed into law.

 

[shadrap]

I like the discussion, including some insults.

I for one simply think it's a democratic voter registration thing. From what I've seen from Obama & his minions over the last 6 years: Good for the country vrs. votes? Votes & its not even close. I guess I can site one thing-taking the work requirement out of unemployment benefits. Keep you dependent on government. It's not your fault. Vote for me, I will take care of you. Affordable Care Act(what a complete oxymoron). Government controls your heath care, they control you.

signed:

Disappointed

 

[drummer]

A friend of mine went to visit his inlaws relatives in Texas. They live in near a border town. There is a mall on this side of the border that is super busy, selling goods and such to people bringing them back into Mexico.

That's American goods being sold, with the American dollar...

BUT LET'S SEAL IT!

 

[drummer]

Is Ayn Rand still in the room? Or is she having dinner at Chipotle?

 

[drummer]

LOL at the person who thinks they're Libertarian just by bookmarking Reason.

 

[Sand]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

Staggeringly bad for the US fiscally.

 

[timschochet]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

Staggeringly bad for the US fiscally.

i think we've discussed this already. There was a time when Heritage was a thoughtful conservative foundation with real gravitas. Sadly that time has passed. But I will read through it.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

$14K per household isn't that much when you consider the Reggie White factor.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

Staggeringly bad for the US fiscally.

So this is essentially the "cost" of educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of which are US citizens?

 

[timschochet]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

Staggeringly bad for the US fiscally.

So this is essentially the "cost" of educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of which are US citizens?

Yeah the more I think about it, I don't think we should include education as a cost for illegal immigrants, any more than we consider it a burden for ourselves. Public education provides so many intangible benefits that can't be measured in these analyses.

 

[Boston]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

Staggeringly bad for the US fiscally.

So this is essentially the "cost" of educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of which are US citizens?

Yeah the more I think about it, I don't think we should include education as a cost for illegal immigrants, any more than we consider it a burden for ourselves. Public education provides so many intangible benefits that can't be measured in these analyses.

It is provided by taxes...this money does not grow on trees...

 

[jonessed]

Here you go Tim. Very long, involved piece on the cost/benefit of unlawful immigrants. Goes through costs and taxes, etc. The upshot is that, on average, unlawful immigrant households are a $14k deficit per year per household (Chart 6). Mostly because these folks, by and large, have no education and the "less than high school" population is, on average, a net drain to the coffers. It also goes into lifetime costs of immigrants after amnesty and put that cost at 6 trillion dollars, net negative.

Staggeringly bad for the US fiscally.

So this is essentially the "cost" of educating the children of illegal immigrants, many of which are US citizens?

Yeah the more I think about it, I don't think we should include education as a cost for illegal immigrants, any more than we consider it a burden for ourselves. Public education provides so many intangible benefits that can't be measured in these analyses.