Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[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.

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

but we reap incredible profits from it. Although we could garner so much more if we paid more money into it...

 

[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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

 

[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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

 

[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...

but we reap incredible profits from it. Although we could garner so much more if we paid more money into it...

I feel very comfortable saying there a ton of places this money can be put to good use for American citizens...

 

[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?

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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

In the world of the authors this is true-

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. ... Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yet educating future households is merely a cost. In the world that is - this is myopic.

 

[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.

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.

I figured the first response would be a slam on the source. But absent a counterpoint that goes through the numbers in such detail I'll take the detailed analysis that is present.

 

[RCon]

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.

Goalposts, wait!

Just a few days ago, it was "illegal immigration is a net positive, look at this study". The study was proven to show exactly the opposite, that illegal immigration is a huge net negative. Instead of accepting that conclusion, you're just going to stop counting the costs? "Well, if we ignore all the costs, the benefits are a net positive!"

 

[RCon]

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...

but we reap incredible profits from it. Although we could garner so much more if we paid more money into it...

Those "profits" are already counted. You're trying to double count the things you like, and ignore the things you don't.

 

[squistion]

Then we’re saddled with bilingual education, which is no good for anybody. The illegals form gangs and are dangerous. And they don’t learn, which brings our averages down.

I would guess that all the Latino friends you claim to have would disagree with you. Didn't spend much time on researching this, since I doubt it anything presented would change your viewpoint, but:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/05/bilingual-education_n_4049170.html

Bilingual Education Holds Cognitive, Social And Health Benefits (INFOGRAPHIC)

Benefits of bilingual education at a glance



Some of the benefits of bilingual education can also be explained by exploring how Spanish-speaking students immersed in English language studies only struggle:



• Cognitive Ability



In a nutshell, this involves brain activity and flexibility at it relates to mathematics, problem solving, logic and memory. Unprepared Latino students in English-only classes can experience stunted cognitive ability growth.

“Solving math problems is a great example of one way to employ your flexibility thinking skills because you have to think about different ways you might solve a problem, in the same way if you’re growing up in a bilingual household you need to think of different words,” Lytle said. “And if you can’t activate a word in one language, you need to think of a different way to describe the word.”



• Social/Emotional



Through his studies, Cornish said students from communities where Spanish is valued possess a positive self-image of themselves as Spanish speakers and the Spanish communities they come from. Conversely, the opposite is true in school districts ignoring bilingual education and Hispanic heritage.



“When I work with individuals who come from communities where Spanish is seen as a less prestigious language and not really valued, this can cause social issues,” Cornish said. “A student who still has a lot of needs to communicate in Spanish may prefer to be perceived as an English speaker and communicate only in English without having all of their education needs met.”



• Educational Advancement



Cornish said there is conflicting research regarding how long it takes a child to acquire another language.

The general idea most people accept is a child becomes proficient socially and can communicate like other children in formal situations in about three to five years. So how does this relate to bilingual education?



“Academic language takes five to seven years to develop,” Cornish said. “There are some questions whether it takes much longer for a child to catch up with the academic English and the complex language they need in the classroom. So why that’s important is during this time when they are not communicating language at the same level as their monolingual peers, there’s a potential for them to be missing out on curriculum, and especially with Common Core standards that are coming out where all of our children will be judged uniformly. Spanish speaking students aren’t going to have the same access if all the instruction is in English.”



• Family



While immigrant or first generation parents want their children to assimilate, Cornish said he’s seeing more families where children are dropping their home language.



“I’ve had tearful conversations with parents who are saying, ‘I’m losing the ability to communicate with my child, what do I do?’” Cornish said. “That’s kind of a hard thing to address. There are a lot of social pressures involved in that that none of us can really control.”



• Health



A recent University of Kentucky College of Medicine study has researchers believing more reserve brainpower, enhanced by being bilingual from an early age, helps protect against memory losses caused by Alzheimer’s and dementia.

 

[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.

Goalposts, wait!Just a few days ago, it was "illegal immigration is a net positive, look at this study". The study was proven to show exactly the opposite, that illegal immigration is a huge net negative. Instead of accepting that conclusion, you're just going to stop counting the costs? "Well, if we ignore all the costs, the benefits are a net positive!"

Yep. I am moving the goalposts.

 

[MaxThreshold]

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.

Goalposts, wait!Just a few days ago, it was "illegal immigration is a net positive, look at this study". The study was proven to show exactly the opposite, that illegal immigration is a huge net negative. Instead of accepting that conclusion, you're just going to stop counting the costs? "Well, if we ignore all the costs, the benefits are a net positive!"

Yep. I am moving the goalposts.

Just like your hero Obama.

 

[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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

In the world of the authors this is true-



The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. ... Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a fiscal deficit that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yet educating future households is merely a cost. In the world that is - this is myopic.

This isn't about the value of educating US children. It's about the value of taking money out of our current education system to accommodate the policy of importing poverty.

The idea that this policy doesn't impact the education of the kids already in the system is absurd. That's aside from the obvious financial cost that Tim feels is overcome by the warm fuzziness it generates in his abdomen.

 

[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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

In the world of the authors this is true-



The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. ... Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a fiscal deficit that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yet educating future households is merely a cost. In the world that is - this is myopic.

This isn't about the value of educating US children. It's about the value of taking money out of our current education system to accommodate the policy of importing poverty.

The idea that this policy doesn't impact the education of the kids already in the system is absurd. That's aside from the obvious financial cost that Tim feels is overcome by the warm fuzziness it generates in his abdomen.

i have a tingle in my leg.

 

[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?

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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

In the world of the authors this is true-

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. ... Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a fiscal deficit that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yet educating future households is merely a cost. In the world that is - this is myopic.

This isn't about the value of educating US children. It's about the value of taking money out of our current education system to accommodate the policy of importing poverty.

The idea that this policy doesn't impact the education of the kids already in the system is absurd. That's aside from the obvious financial cost that Tim feels is overcome by the warm fuzziness it generates in his abdomen.

What was that about moving goalposts? And sure adding children that are culturally different into the education system is an unmeasurable benefit to those in the system.

 

[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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

In the world of the authors this is true-

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. ... Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a fiscal deficit that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yet educating future households is merely a cost. In the world that is - this is myopic.

This isn't about the value of educating US children. It's about the value of taking money out of our current education system to accommodate the policy of importing poverty.

The idea that this policy doesn't impact the education of the kids already in the system is absurd. That's aside from the obvious financial cost that Tim feels is overcome by the warm fuzziness it generates in his abdomen.

What was that about moving goalposts? And sure adding children that are culturally different into the education system is an unmeasurable benefit to those in the system.

The unmeasurable societal benefits of tingly legs.

 

[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?

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.

yeah I expected that this would garner a few chuckles. But your vision is narrow, IMO.

It's based on the world that is, not what I wish it was.

In the world of the authors this is true-

The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. ... Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a fiscal deficit that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing.

Yet educating future households is merely a cost. In the world that is - this is myopic.

This isn't about the value of educating US children. It's about the value of taking money out of our current education system to accommodate the policy of importing poverty.

The idea that this policy doesn't impact the education of the kids already in the system is absurd. That's aside from the obvious financial cost that Tim feels is overcome by the warm fuzziness it generates in his abdomen.

What was that about moving goalposts? And sure adding children that are culturally different into the education system is an unmeasurable benefit to those in the system.

The unmeasurable societal benefits of tingly legs.

Smart "repeal and replace"

 

[squistion]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

 

[rockaction]

As a former libertarian, I support amnesty because of David Brooks's National Greatness articles. Heritage is no longer in line with my former '90s conservative self, which has now adopted a National Greatness theme. I no longer listen to my former libertarian self because of my movement towards an ends-based National Greatness theme, based in Edmund Burke and pant legs. - tim

How long are you guys going to futilely argue with this cat? This is where he is. He's no longer even a conservative. National Greatness is not a conservative position. He's a NaGre.

 

[MaxThreshold]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

Seriously, since you're side is willing to believe everything Obama says without question ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"), let's just hold everyone else to that same expectation. If it's good enough for the president, it's good enough for us regular citizens.

 

[timschochet]

As a former libertarian, I support amnesty because of David Brooks's National Greatness articles. Heritage is no longer in line with my former '90s conservative self, which has now adopted a National Greatness theme. I no longer listen to my former libertarian self because of my movement towards an ends-based National Greatness theme, based in Edmund Burke and pant legs. - tim

How long are you guys going to futilely argue with this cat? This is where he is. He's no longer even a conservative. National Greatness is not a conservative position. He's a NaGre.

Ive never heard of National Greatness and I rarely read David Brooks and never on this subject. But beyond that why are you so eager to label me? If you want to discuss my position on this, great. We can discuss it point by point. But who cares what the label is?

 

[timschochet]

Boots assertion that illegals are involved in a high percentage of crimes would be irrelevant even if it was true. What is relevant is what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes. According to the University of Arizona , it's a lower percentage than that of legal citizens.

 

[Jim11]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

And yet when I post something WITH a link, you respond "cut & paste". Make up your mind.

 

[Jim11]

Boots assertion that illegals are involved in a high percentage of crimes would be irrelevant even if it was true. What is relevant is what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes. According to the University of Arizona , it's a lower percentage than that of legal citizens.

One could argue that they are ALL committing a crime. They are ILLEGAL immigrants.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

This is a bit old and also it isn't just Southern California but here is the hurdle.

.

 

[Jim11]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

This is a bit old and also it isn't just Southern California but here is the hurdle.

.

That sure looks like an unbiased site.

 

[timschochet]

Boots assertion that illegals are involved in a high percentage of crimes would be irrelevant even if it was true. What is relevant is what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes. According to the University of Arizona , it's a lower percentage than that of legal citizens.

One could argue that they are ALL committing a crime. They are ILLEGAL immigrants.

but since it's a misdemeanor, one would be really foolish to make this argument.

 

[MaxThreshold]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

This is a bit old and also it isn't just Southern California but here is the hurdle.

.

That sure looks like an unbiased site.

Wonder if BFS can give us actual quotes from illegal immigrants as proof also. Maybe some talking points from the Obama Administration as further evidence.

 

[humpback]

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.

Goalposts, wait!Just a few days ago, it was "illegal immigration is a net positive, look at this study". The study was proven to show exactly the opposite, that illegal immigration is a huge net negative. Instead of accepting that conclusion, you're just going to stop counting the costs? "Well, if we ignore all the costs, the benefits are a net positive!"

Yep. I am moving the goalposts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do.

This is the second time you have stated this as fact without any documentation. You were previously asked to provide a link to prove this dubious claim but failed to do so.

I live in southern California and I have not seen any statistics indicating that a "high percentage of crimes" here are committed by illegal immigrants.

Once again, provide a link to prove your claim or stop making it.

This is a bit old and also it isn't just Southern California but here is the hurdle.

.

That sure looks like an unbiased site.

Wonder if BFS can give us actual quotes from illegal immigrants as proof also. Maybe some talking points from the Obama Administration too as further evidence of proof.

I guess these solid rebuttals suggest that any fact is too much of a hurdle for you guys to clear. But I still wouldn't call that "proof". Here I'll post a link to something that is "fair and balanced" for you.

 

[squistion]

Boots assertion that illegals are involved in a high percentage of crimes would be irrelevant even if it was true. What is relevant is what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes. According to the University of Arizona , it's a lower percentage than that of legal citizens.

One could argue that they are ALL committing a crime. They are ILLEGAL immigrants.

but since it's a misdemeanor, one would be really foolish to make this argument.

These people are illegal and that their very presence is an attack on the integrity of our laws.
To Tim as a liberal everything is subjective. But until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, they’re making a mockery of all of our laws.

So you admit you were not being truthful when you said they are responsible for a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California. When anyone talks about crimes being committed here, they are never referring to the ongoing misdemeanor of being here illegally.

And attacking the integrity of our laws is not considered a crime, nor is making a mockery of all our laws part of any crime statistic that I have ever seen.

 

[RCon]

Boots assertion that illegals are involved in a high percentage of crimes would be irrelevant even if it was true. What is relevant is what percentage of illegal immigrants commit crimes. According to the University of Arizona , it's a lower percentage than that of legal citizens.

Well, that wouldn't be exactly the standard I'd use. First, I'd probably define which crimes "count". For instance, we should probably ignore jaywalking. Then we'd have to correct for socio-economic status and possibly geography.

 

[RCon]

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.

Goalposts, wait!Just a few days ago, it was "illegal immigration is a net positive, look at this study". The study was proven to show exactly the opposite, that illegal immigration is a huge net negative. Instead of accepting that conclusion, you're just going to stop counting the costs? "Well, if we ignore all the costs, the benefits are a net positive!"

Yep. I am moving the goalposts.

On the plus side, at least you can stop posting unsupported opinion that illegal immigration is a net economic positive, only to continually get challenged on it. Of course, there's no way to refute a purely emotional argument such as "no matter what the facts and statistics say, I still fell we should have open borders". I guess this debate is concluded.

 

[Todd Andrews]

shoo, brown people, shoo

 

[Koya]

We all know it’s wrong and these people shouldn’t be here; they’re breaking the law, how many more ways can I say it?

You can say it how ever many more ways you want. Not everyone believes it is wrong. And some are simply aghast at the utter lack of humanity shown by certain folks on the issue. Its disheartening, to say the least, regardless what you feel the best course of action may be.

 

[Jim11]

shoo, brown people, shoo

And here is Todd being Todd. Never anything of substance; just the race card.

 

[Jim11]

We all know it’s wrong and these people shouldn’t be here; they’re breaking the law, how many more ways can I say it?

You can say it how ever many more ways you want. Not everyone believes it is wrong. And some are simply aghast at the utter lack of humanity shown by certain folks on the issue. Its disheartening, to say the least, regardless what you feel the best course of action may be.

The best course of action should be upholding the law or changing it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A strong fence on the border, throughout the entire border, and you can’t tell me this won’t solve the problem for the most part. It could be done easily and cheaply, too, compared to the cost of border patrols and to our law enforcement, in general. The American people want this fence.

Think of all the manual labor construction jobs for illegals building a fence would create.

 

[Todd Andrews]

shoo, brown people, shoo

And here is Todd being Todd. Never anything of substance; just the race card.

Shoo JimKooK.

 

[cubd8]

And there it is. Obama fires the first salvo in a constitutional fight that obliterates any chance for bipartisanship over the next two years, and does it in true Obama fashion. He lied directly to the country's face on national TV believing the people are too stupid to know any different.

Obama took credit for "deporting" 70% more people than Bush and therefore claiming our borders are as secure as they've ever been. The real fact is the President simply began counting people turned away at the border entrance as a deportation with every other President counting interior removal of illegals as a deportation. Interior removal is down nearly 70% with Obama truly deporting just 1/3 as many illegals annually as Bush had.

If you had those turned away at the border to interior deportations, Bush has far more than Obama, but Obama doesn't account for the border turnarounds for Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan when giving himself credit for these numbers.

This man is simply far too intelligent to not know what he's saying and therefore this is nothing short of another deliberate lie on National Television to try and support a new and very unpopular policy that bypasses the will of the people via their representatives in Congress setting up the largest Constitutional crisis in America in 100 years.

Where does Presidential power end? At this point, Obama has seized the authority to mold and make law at a scale never before seen. This was not an issue of limited resources as past Presidents have cited as a reason to use Prosecutorial Discretion to selectively not focus on small parts of a particular law. This is the willful suspension of nearly the entire Immigration system to meet a political objective in direct violation of the President's primary sworn responsibility, which is to uphold and enforce the laws as they are written.

And so, the battle begins. The GOP will likely respond and now that Obama has bypassed the niceties and instead of shaking hands to build a new partnership, as Bill Clinton did, he's chosen to punch the GOP right in the throat. The problem is the GOP has more power than Obama thought and so a shut down of all ability to function in his role seems likely and the next two years will turn Washington into a political circus whether we like it or not.

Obama may have just solidified his position as the worst President in US history. Executive orders are not legacy items. They are temporary band aids to support a personal political position or view. This will be the same. Obama's legacy will remain as:

1. Obamacare - unpopular with 2/3 of the country and likely to spend the next 10-15 years being picked apart legislatively and judicially, as well as the target of countless defunding efforts about to begin, until it no longer looks the same.

2. The Stimulus/Bailout period - debate will rage for decades on if this actually worked because while we never entered a Depression, the economy never really recovered, having essentially flatlined.

3. The Worst Economic Recovery in 150 years - The economy continues to lag at a snail's pace, creating only part time jobs primarily while wages and other hard felt metrics plummet. Spin does not change what people feel.

4. Scandal - The President had been pulled into over a dozen scandals in, most of which will now assuredly involve two more years of investigation after this latest fight by Obama on Immigration. Expect two more years of even deeper diving into the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc etc etc.

5. Partisanship - With Obama's inability to secure GOP support for even the simplest of his proposals and his unique approach of keeping the GOP out of the room at all during discussion, he secures himself as the most partisan President possibly in US history. A Divider of the populace.

6. Regulation - The President has buried massive amounts of the country under mountains of regulations in huge critical sectors like Health Care, Housing, Banking, Energy, etc. Many of these industries yet to see their tens of thousands of new rules being written and many granting sweeping powers to regulatory bodies that are currently on the Supreme Court's docket.

7. Negativity - 6 years into Obama's term, not one single metric shows a positive feeling toward the President or the perception of the country or its direction by the people.

8. Foreign Policy - You are hard pressed to find a single overseas relationship that views us in a more positive light since Obama has taken office. Perhaps Iran since we are trying to find a way to allow them to continue their nuclear weapons program. Russia is reconquering parts of allied nations. China has become more belligerent. ISIS has expanded to conquer two nations after we pulled out. And terrorism is creeping back into the US and overseas as the President strikes fear in the hearts of no one.

The list goes on and on and on. And we are now in a position to see the next two years where we could've turned a corner, turned a page, instead turn into what will be the biggest fight in the history of Washington. Spectacle and Constitutional battles like we've never seen for 100 years as the GOP tries to wrestle their authority and power back from a President drunk on power and angry with the American voter.

And so it begins...

I agree this sets the stage for 2 years of partisanship but isn't that what we've had before? Why can't the Republicans pass their own bill?

I agree with a lot of the points made here though.

 

[Jim11]

shoo, brown people, shoo

And here is Todd being Todd. Never anything of substance; just the race card.

Shoo JimKooK.

I rest my case.

 

[timschochet]

shoo, brown people, shoo

And here is Todd being Todd. Never anything of substance; just the race card.

Shoo JimKooK.

I rest my case.

Sounds like a Cantonese delicacy.

 

[Jim11]

And there it is. Obama fires the first salvo in a constitutional fight that obliterates any chance for bipartisanship over the next two years, and does it in true Obama fashion. He lied directly to the country's face on national TV believing the people are too stupid to know any different.

Obama took credit for "deporting" 70% more people than Bush and therefore claiming our borders are as secure as they've ever been. The real fact is the President simply began counting people turned away at the border entrance as a deportation with every other President counting interior removal of illegals as a deportation. Interior removal is down nearly 70% with Obama truly deporting just 1/3 as many illegals annually as Bush had.

If you had those turned away at the border to interior deportations, Bush has far more than Obama, but Obama doesn't account for the border turnarounds for Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan when giving himself credit for these numbers.

This man is simply far too intelligent to not know what he's saying and therefore this is nothing short of another deliberate lie on National Television to try and support a new and very unpopular policy that bypasses the will of the people via their representatives in Congress setting up the largest Constitutional crisis in America in 100 years.

Where does Presidential power end? At this point, Obama has seized the authority to mold and make law at a scale never before seen. This was not an issue of limited resources as past Presidents have cited as a reason to use Prosecutorial Discretion to selectively not focus on small parts of a particular law. This is the willful suspension of nearly the entire Immigration system to meet a political objective in direct violation of the President's primary sworn responsibility, which is to uphold and enforce the laws as they are written.

And so, the battle begins. The GOP will likely respond and now that Obama has bypassed the niceties and instead of shaking hands to build a new partnership, as Bill Clinton did, he's chosen to punch the GOP right in the throat. The problem is the GOP has more power than Obama thought and so a shut down of all ability to function in his role seems likely and the next two years will turn Washington into a political circus whether we like it or not.

Obama may have just solidified his position as the worst President in US history. Executive orders are not legacy items. They are temporary band aids to support a personal political position or view. This will be the same. Obama's legacy will remain as:

1. Obamacare - unpopular with 2/3 of the country and likely to spend the next 10-15 years being picked apart legislatively and judicially, as well as the target of countless defunding efforts about to begin, until it no longer looks the same.

2. The Stimulus/Bailout period - debate will rage for decades on if this actually worked because while we never entered a Depression, the economy never really recovered, having essentially flatlined.

3. The Worst Economic Recovery in 150 years - The economy continues to lag at a snail's pace, creating only part time jobs primarily while wages and other hard felt metrics plummet. Spin does not change what people feel.

4. Scandal - The President had been pulled into over a dozen scandals in, most of which will now assuredly involve two more years of investigation after this latest fight by Obama on Immigration. Expect two more years of even deeper diving into the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc etc etc.

5. Partisanship - With Obama's inability to secure GOP support for even the simplest of his proposals and his unique approach of keeping the GOP out of the room at all during discussion, he secures himself as the most partisan President possibly in US history. A Divider of the populace.

6. Regulation - The President has buried massive amounts of the country under mountains of regulations in huge critical sectors like Health Care, Housing, Banking, Energy, etc. Many of these industries yet to see their tens of thousands of new rules being written and many granting sweeping powers to regulatory bodies that are currently on the Supreme Court's docket.

7. Negativity - 6 years into Obama's term, not one single metric shows a positive feeling toward the President or the perception of the country or its direction by the people.

8. Foreign Policy - You are hard pressed to find a single overseas relationship that views us in a more positive light since Obama has taken office. Perhaps Iran since we are trying to find a way to allow them to continue their nuclear weapons program. Russia is reconquering parts of allied nations. China has become more belligerent. ISIS has expanded to conquer two nations after we pulled out. And terrorism is creeping back into the US and overseas as the President strikes fear in the hearts of no one.

The list goes on and on and on. And we are now in a position to see the next two years where we could've turned a corner, turned a page, instead turn into what will be the biggest fight in the history of Washington. Spectacle and Constitutional battles like we've never seen for 100 years as the GOP tries to wrestle their authority and power back from a President drunk on power and angry with the American voter.

And so it begins...

I agree this sets the stage for 2 years of partisanship but isn't that what we've had before? Why can't the Republicans pass their own bill?

I agree with a lot of the points made here though.

Hillary's going to have a lot of fixing to do.

 

[drummer]

And there it is. Obama fires the first salvo in a constitutional fight that obliterates any chance for bipartisanship over the next two years, and does it in true Obama fashion. He lied directly to the country's face on national TV believing the people are too stupid to know any different.

Obama took credit for "deporting" 70% more people than Bush and therefore claiming our borders are as secure as they've ever been. The real fact is the President simply began counting people turned away at the border entrance as a deportation with every other President counting interior removal of illegals as a deportation. Interior removal is down nearly 70% with Obama truly deporting just 1/3 as many illegals annually as Bush had.

If you had those turned away at the border to interior deportations, Bush has far more than Obama, but Obama doesn't account for the border turnarounds for Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Reagan when giving himself credit for these numbers.

This man is simply far too intelligent to not know what he's saying and therefore this is nothing short of another deliberate lie on National Television to try and support a new and very unpopular policy that bypasses the will of the people via their representatives in Congress setting up the largest Constitutional crisis in America in 100 years.

Where does Presidential power end? At this point, Obama has seized the authority to mold and make law at a scale never before seen. This was not an issue of limited resources as past Presidents have cited as a reason to use Prosecutorial Discretion to selectively not focus on small parts of a particular law. This is the willful suspension of nearly the entire Immigration system to meet a political objective in direct violation of the President's primary sworn responsibility, which is to uphold and enforce the laws as they are written.

And so, the battle begins. The GOP will likely respond and now that Obama has bypassed the niceties and instead of shaking hands to build a new partnership, as Bill Clinton did, he's chosen to punch the GOP right in the throat. The problem is the GOP has more power than Obama thought and so a shut down of all ability to function in his role seems likely and the next two years will turn Washington into a political circus whether we like it or not.

Obama may have just solidified his position as the worst President in US history. Executive orders are not legacy items. They are temporary band aids to support a personal political position or view. This will be the same. Obama's legacy will remain as:

1. Obamacare - unpopular with 2/3 of the country and likely to spend the next 10-15 years being picked apart legislatively and judicially, as well as the target of countless defunding efforts about to begin, until it no longer looks the same.

2. The Stimulus/Bailout period - debate will rage for decades on if this actually worked because while we never entered a Depression, the economy never really recovered, having essentially flatlined.

3. The Worst Economic Recovery in 150 years - The economy continues to lag at a snail's pace, creating only part time jobs primarily while wages and other hard felt metrics plummet. Spin does not change what people feel.

4. Scandal - The President had been pulled into over a dozen scandals in, most of which will now assuredly involve two more years of investigation after this latest fight by Obama on Immigration. Expect two more years of even deeper diving into the IRS, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, etc etc etc.

5. Partisanship - With Obama's inability to secure GOP support for even the simplest of his proposals and his unique approach of keeping the GOP out of the room at all during discussion, he secures himself as the most partisan President possibly in US history. A Divider of the populace.

6. Regulation - The President has buried massive amounts of the country under mountains of regulations in huge critical sectors like Health Care, Housing, Banking, Energy, etc. Many of these industries yet to see their tens of thousands of new rules being written and many granting sweeping powers to regulatory bodies that are currently on the Supreme Court's docket.

7. Negativity - 6 years into Obama's term, not one single metric shows a positive feeling toward the President or the perception of the country or its direction by the people.

8. Foreign Policy - You are hard pressed to find a single overseas relationship that views us in a more positive light since Obama has taken office. Perhaps Iran since we are trying to find a way to allow them to continue their nuclear weapons program. Russia is reconquering parts of allied nations. China has become more belligerent. ISIS has expanded to conquer two nations after we pulled out. And terrorism is creeping back into the US and overseas as the President strikes fear in the hearts of no one.

The list goes on and on and on. And we are now in a position to see the next two years where we could've turned a corner, turned a page, instead turn into what will be the biggest fight in the history of Washington. Spectacle and Constitutional battles like we've never seen for 100 years as the GOP tries to wrestle their authority and power back from a President drunk on power and angry with the American voter.

And so it begins...

I agree this sets the stage for 2 years of partisanship but isn't that what we've had before? Why can't the Republicans pass their own bill?

I agree with a lot of the points made here though.

Hillary's going to have a lot of fixing to do.

That's a load of horse**** in that article, but whatever suits your paranoid, racist schizophrenia.

 

[Jim11]

Someone forgot to take their lithium today.

 

[drummer]

Someone forgot to take their lithium today.

Yeah, make sure your Obamacare covers that, and then you won't see those boogeymen anymore.

It will also make your sheets look whiter.

 

[Jim11]

I rest my case again.

 

[tommyboy]

The nutters have found their keyboards

 

[drummer]

The nutters have found their keyboards

Says a guy who bets on elections.

 

[drummer]

I rest my case again.

Right on a phallus!

 

[drummer]

I'll think I'll just see what the Dow is gonna do this week.