Obama To Announce Uncostitutional Amnesty (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Oh well....a well-written and respected book with ideas in it worthy of discussion turns into a character assassination instead of a civil discussion because the conclusions fail to line up with their beliefs. What else is new. Ironically, it is pretty much the type of mindset which the book criticizes, but correctly predicts.

What character assassination? The guy said that the fact that Libs may not understand they Conservative counterparts, that means they are not openminded. How can anyone be expected to invest time in reading more into something that has such a glaring red flag at its surface?

You seem to lack an understanding of what open-minded means. In simple terms what the author is saying, is that Liberals tend to view issues with the value of fairness being by far the highest value that exists and does not really weigh or give any merit to other values. I am not sure how that can not be considered narrow and closed-minded. It seems to be the very definition of the term.

 

[Koya]

"Worse yet, liberals don’t know what they don’t know; they don’t understand how limited their knowledge of conservative values is. If anyone is close-minded here it’s not conservatives."

For one, this person has no idea what a liberal is. I believe he is referring to Liberals, not liberals. that said:

1. No knowing who you are is not "closeminded" - it's not good, but it's not closeminded in and of itself.

2. Not understanding the true drive behind someone else's beliefs is also an issue, but it's not closeminded.

And that is the word I am taking issue with. Because while Libs may be closeminded, it can't be for the reasons stated in that original post. Because, well, that's not what closeminded means.

 

[TPW]

"The problem with our liberal friends isn't that they are ignorant, it is that they know so much about what isn't so!" - Ronald Wilson Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2vd76VoP9c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrqxjOC-wbA

 

[timschochet]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

 

[timschochet]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

We don't need to deport 11 million people to get them to leave. Why do you keep saying this? Oh right, it's a liberal talking point.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

You constantly label conservative thinking around the tea party, whatever the heck that is. I wish you would just drop bringing up the tea party on every issue and blaming them for everything. They are pretty much irrelevant except being a boogey man for the hard left. It is quite possible that now that the GOP has control over both houses that some kind of immigration bill will be passed, but it is unlikely it is anything that Obama would sign. Hopefully the GOP can work with the Dems and make it somewhat bi-partisan. We will see. The disagreement and gridlock between the two parties has zero to do with the tea party. It is legitimate difference of opinions on numerous issues based upon different values which people hold. There will always be hardcore people on both sides trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be, and the presence of some mystical tea party makes zero difference.

 

[timschochet]

Many conservatives here seem convinced that I am a diehard liberal, despite my denials, mostly because I attack the Tea Party so much. But I don't attack the Tea Party because of their ideology; I attack them because of their rigidity and refusal to legislate or compromise, which has more done so much to poison the political atmosphere in the last 6 years. No, Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for this poison; they've made mistakes, and deserve much criticism, but the main and overwhelming cause of most of our political problems now is the Tea Party conservative base of the GOP.

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.

And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.

This is so wrong.

Of course it seems wrong to you, because you refuse to acknowledge that the Tea Party has gone off the deep end on this issue, like so many others. You view these discussions as partisan arguments, left vs. right, and I keep trying to tell you that the Tea Party is something different. There is no Democratic party equivalent.

Of course there are. There are gay rights groups. There are abortion rights groups. There are Civil rights groups. There are teach unions. All these type of groups are rigid and will not compromise one inch on their issues and they all have significant power in the Democratic organization.

Apples and oranges. There are groups like this in both parties. The Republicans have pro-life groups, the NRA, etc. Yes, interest groups can be rigid. But the Tea Party is not an interest group, it's a name for the conservative base of the Republican party that has decided, since 2009, to refuse to compromise, and who perceives the Republican establishment leadership as just as much their enemies as they do the Democrats. The Tea Party has been the source of every major problem we have had to endure since Obama's election. There is no Democratic equivalent, and never has been. There is no Republican equivalent except perhaps the Joe McCarthy movement of the early 1950s. Before that you have to go back to the American Party (Know-Nothings) of the 1850s.

 

[timschochet]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

We don't need to deport 11 million people to get them to leave. Why do you keep saying this? Oh right, it's a liberal talking point.

We don't need (or want) to get them to leave, period.

 

[jon_mx]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

We don't need to deport 11 million people to get them to leave. Why do you keep saying this? Oh right, it's a liberal talking point.

That is Tim's latest attempt at accurately characterizing conservative thinking.

 

[jon_mx]

Many conservatives here seem convinced that I am a diehard liberal, despite my denials, mostly because I attack the Tea Party so much. But I don't attack the Tea Party because of their ideology; I attack them because of their rigidity and refusal to legislate or compromise, which has more done so much to poison the political atmosphere in the last 6 years. No, Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for this poison; they've made mistakes, and deserve much criticism, but the main and overwhelming cause of most of our political problems now is the Tea Party conservative base of the GOP.

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.

And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.

This is so wrong.

Of course it seems wrong to you, because you refuse to acknowledge that the Tea Party has gone off the deep end on this issue, like so many others. You view these discussions as partisan arguments, left vs. right, and I keep trying to tell you that the Tea Party is something different. There is no Democratic party equivalent.

Of course there are. There are gay rights groups. There are abortion rights groups. There are Civil rights groups. There are teach unions. All these type of groups are rigid and will not compromise one inch on their issues and they all have significant power in the Democratic organization.

Apples and oranges. There are groups like this in both parties. The Republicans have pro-life groups, the NRA, etc. Yes, interest groups can be rigid. But the Tea Party is not an interest group, it's a name for the conservative base of the Republican party that has decided, since 2009, to refuse to compromise, and who perceives the Republican establishment leadership as just as much their enemies as they do the Democrats. The Tea Party has been the source of every major problem we have had to endure since Obama's election. There is no Democratic equivalent, and never has been. There is no Republican equivalent except perhaps the Joe McCarthy movement of the early 1950s. Before that you have to go back to the American Party (Know-Nothings) of the 1850s.

The Tea Party is a boogeyman of the Left. It is not defined or controlled. It is a catchall term for anything that liberals do not like. It is the same conservative base which has existed for decades and except for a nice label, it is no different than the liberal base which generally supports Democrats.

 

[RCon]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

Funny, you were all for the Heritage report when CNN referenced it as supporting "your side", before you realized they misinterpreted it.

So now we're back to net positive? Even though you've never produced one single link with a credible study showing such? In other words, illegal immigration is a net positive "because I say so". Just so we're clear...

And, no, I don't think most people on the conservative side are suggesting that anyone deport 11 million people. Enforce the laws that prevent employers from hiring illegals and granting government benefits to illegals, and they'll leave on their own.

 

[timschochet]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

You constantly label conservative thinking around the tea party, whatever the heck that is. I wish you would just drop bringing up the tea party on every issue and blaming them for everything. They are pretty much irrelevant except being a boogey man for the hard left. It is quite possible that now that the GOP has control over both houses that some kind of immigration bill will be passed, but it is unlikely it is anything that Obama would sign. Hopefully the GOP can work with the Dems and make it somewhat bi-partisan. We will see. The disagreement and gridlock between the two parties has zero to do with the tea party. It is legitimate difference of opinions on numerous issues based upon different values which people hold. There will always be hardcore people on both sides trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be, and the presence of some mystical tea party makes zero difference.

Wow. Let's see:

1. The Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican party have become interchangeable. I use Tea Party for shorthand, but I could just as soon use conservative base.

2. I blame the conservative base for most of our current problems: again, not because of their ideology, much of which I don't disagree with, but because of their rigidity.

3. I do not believe the House and Senate will pass an immigration bill. The conservative base won't allow anything that gives illegals the ability to stay here. Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If they do pass something along those lines, I fully expect Obama to sign it. If he doesn't, then 100% of my criticism would fall on his shoulders. But I doubt it will get that far.

4. No you're wrong. There has never been this amount of lack of bipartisanship modern times. There has never been this lack of bipartisanship on the Democrat side. Since 2009, it's all been on the Republican side, and it's coming from the conservative base.

 

[RCon]

The Tea Party has been the source of every major problem we have had to endure since Obama's election.

For reference next time you claim someone is unfairly representing your myopic view of the Tea Party.

 

[timschochet]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

Funny, you were all for the Heritage report when CNN referenced it as supporting "your side", before you realized they misinterpreted it.

So now we're back to net positive? Even though you've never produced one single link with a credible study showing such? In other words, illegal immigration is a net positive "because I say so". Just so we're clear...

And, no, I don't think most people on the conservative side are suggesting that anyone deport 11 million people. Enforce the laws that prevent employers from hiring illegals and granting government benefits to illegals, and they'll leave on their own.

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

 

[timschochet]

The Tea Party has been the source of every major problem we have had to endure since Obama's election.

For reference next time you claim someone is unfairly representing your myopic view of the Tea Party.

I've never said anything different. How is it myopic? Some here have accused the Tea Party (and the conservative base) or being racist; I have not. In fact, I've defended them against that charge. Some people suggest that Tea Partiers are stupid; I have not. I've defended them against that too. I have close friends and family who identify strongly with the Tea Party. and I admire them. I think the Tea Party (and the conservative base) are made up for the most part of well-meaning people who truly want what's best for this country and are very concerned with the way we are heading. They are patriots, they are not extremists, they are a part of our system of government. They aren't fascists or communists or Islamists or anything evil. It's just that the ones in political office won't compromise, won't accept common sense solutions.

 

[StrikeS2k]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

Funny, you were all for the Heritage report when CNN referenced it as supporting "your side", before you realized they misinterpreted it.

So now we're back to net positive? Even though you've never produced one single link with a credible study showing such? In other words, illegal immigration is a net positive "because I say so". Just so we're clear...

And, no, I don't think most people on the conservative side are suggesting that anyone deport 11 million people. Enforce the laws that prevent employers from hiring illegals and granting government benefits to illegals, and they'll leave on their own.

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

Making stuff up again I see.

 

[RCon]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

 

[timschochet]

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue.

Well, at least somebody is looking at the fiscal realities of having these folks here and are reacting to what this is costing us. While it may be drastic it is fiscally responsible, unlike the liberal stance, which is just looking at votes (and willing to pay anything to get them, regardless of the effects on our kids and grandkids).

It's fiscally responsible to be for deporting 11 million people? That's utter hogwash.

And further more, NO. These people are NOT a drain on our system. I don't care about the Heritage report, it's full of crap. It's one sided in that it does not consider the money that goes into Social Security, (100 billion in the last 10 years.) Nor do any of these reports, other than that of the University of Arizona, consider the lower prices that these workers generate by working at lower than minimum wage. Or that most of the jobs they perform that are above minimum wage are jobs that cannot be filled by American workers (due to lack of interest), and therefore the absence of illegal immigrants would cost society far more than whatever amount they cost our schools, hospitals, and legal system. So I continue to asset that, even without the education qualification I made yesterday, they are an absolute net benefit.

Funny, you were all for the Heritage report when CNN referenced it as supporting "your side", before you realized they misinterpreted it.

So now we're back to net positive? Even though you've never produced one single link with a credible study showing such? In other words, illegal immigration is a net positive "because I say so". Just so we're clear...

And, no, I don't think most people on the conservative side are suggesting that anyone deport 11 million people. Enforce the laws that prevent employers from hiring illegals and granting government benefits to illegals, and they'll leave on their own.

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

Making stuff up again I see.

No it's something that's been addressed again and again. Reason Magazine, the Cato Institute, and the Chamber of Commerce have all written numerous articles over the years about the negative economic ramifications of punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

You accuse me of making up a lot of my arguments, and I regard that as a great compliment. I'd be incredibly proud if my thinking on this issue were original. But of course it isn't.

 

[RCon]

The Tea Party has been the source of every major problem we have had to endure since Obama's election.

For reference next time you claim someone is unfairly representing your myopic view of the Tea Party.

I've never said anything different. How is it myopic? Some here have accused the Tea Party (and the conservative base) or being racist; I have not. In fact, I've defended them against that charge. Some people suggest that Tea Partiers are stupid; I have not. I've defended them against that too. I have close friends and family who identify strongly with the Tea Party. and I admire them. I think the Tea Party (and the conservative base) are made up for the most part of well-meaning people who truly want what's best for this country and are very concerned with the way we are heading. They are patriots, they are not extremists, they are a part of our system of government. They aren't fascists or communists or Islamists or anything evil. It's just that the ones in political office won't compromise, won't accept common sense solutions.

It's myopic, and beyond silly, to blame them for every major problem since 2008.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

You constantly label conservative thinking around the tea party, whatever the heck that is. I wish you would just drop bringing up the tea party on every issue and blaming them for everything. They are pretty much irrelevant except being a boogey man for the hard left. It is quite possible that now that the GOP has control over both houses that some kind of immigration bill will be passed, but it is unlikely it is anything that Obama would sign. Hopefully the GOP can work with the Dems and make it somewhat bi-partisan. We will see. The disagreement and gridlock between the two parties has zero to do with the tea party. It is legitimate difference of opinions on numerous issues based upon different values which people hold. There will always be hardcore people on both sides trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be, and the presence of some mystical tea party makes zero difference.

Wow. Let's see:

1. The Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican party have become interchangeable. I use Tea Party for shorthand, but I could just as soon use conservative base.

2. I blame the conservative base for most of our current problems: again, not because of their ideology, much of which I don't disagree with, but because of their rigidity.

3. I do not believe the House and Senate will pass an immigration bill. The conservative base won't allow anything that gives illegals the ability to stay here. Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If they do pass something along those lines, I fully expect Obama to sign it. If he doesn't, then 100% of my criticism would fall on his shoulders. But I doubt it will get that far.

4. No you're wrong. There has never been this amount of lack of bipartisanship modern times. There has never been this lack of bipartisanship on the Democrat side. Since 2009, it's all been on the Republican side, and it's coming from the conservative base.

1. OK, we agree. That is how you use the term

2, 3 and 4. There has always been this amount of bipartisanship bickering and people taking hardline positions. Our history is filled with it and I am confused why you have never seen it before.

 

[timschochet]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

 

[RCon]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

 

[timschochet]

The Tea Party has been the source of every major problem we have had to endure since Obama's election.

For reference next time you claim someone is unfairly representing your myopic view of the Tea Party.

I've never said anything different. How is it myopic? Some here have accused the Tea Party (and the conservative base) or being racist; I have not. In fact, I've defended them against that charge. Some people suggest that Tea Partiers are stupid; I have not. I've defended them against that too. I have close friends and family who identify strongly with the Tea Party. and I admire them. I think the Tea Party (and the conservative base) are made up for the most part of well-meaning people who truly want what's best for this country and are very concerned with the way we are heading. They are patriots, they are not extremists, they are a part of our system of government. They aren't fascists or communists or Islamists or anything evil. It's just that the ones in political office won't compromise, won't accept common sense solutions.

It's myopic, and beyond silly, to blame them for every major problem since 2008.

That all depends on what you consider the major problems to be. IMO, there have been basically two:

1. The inability to pass a budget deal in the summer of 2011 slowed our economic recovery.

2. The government shutdown of 2013 was an economic disaster.

That's basically it. Of course I blame them for a number of other issues, such as refusing to agree with the Republican establishment on immigration, but in the greater scheme of things that's a minor issue. And I don't blame them for foreign affairs, of course, but all of our foreign issues since 2008 have been relatively minor as well (in that they did not cause immediate pain.)

 

[jonessed]

Oh great. Now the Obama economy is on the Tea Party.

 

[timschochet]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

 

[timschochet]

Oh great. Now the Obama economy is on the Tea Party.

Well, it's a different subject than this thread, but partly yeah. Not completely.

 

[njherdfan]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

You constantly label conservative thinking around the tea party, whatever the heck that is. I wish you would just drop bringing up the tea party on every issue and blaming them for everything. They are pretty much irrelevant except being a boogey man for the hard left. It is quite possible that now that the GOP has control over both houses that some kind of immigration bill will be passed, but it is unlikely it is anything that Obama would sign. Hopefully the GOP can work with the Dems and make it somewhat bi-partisan. We will see. The disagreement and gridlock between the two parties has zero to do with the tea party. It is legitimate difference of opinions on numerous issues based upon different values which people hold. There will always be hardcore people on both sides trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be, and the presence of some mystical tea party makes zero difference.

Wow. Let's see:

1. The Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican party have become interchangeable. I use Tea Party for shorthand, but I could just as soon use conservative base.

2. I blame the conservative base for most of our current problems: again, not because of their ideology, much of which I don't disagree with, but because of their rigidity.

3. I do not believe the House and Senate will pass an immigration bill. The conservative base won't allow anything that gives illegals the ability to stay here. Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If they do pass something along those lines, I fully expect Obama to sign it. If he doesn't, then 100% of my criticism would fall on his shoulders. But I doubt it will get that far.

4. No you're wrong. There has never been this amount of lack of bipartisanship modern times. There has never been this lack of bipartisanship on the Democrat side. Since 2009, it's all been on the Republican side, and it's coming from the conservative base.

1. OK, we agree. That is how you use the term

2, 3 and 4. There has always been this amount of bipartisanship bickering and people taking hardline positions. Our history is filled with it and I am confused why you have never seen it before.

So the fact that the most recent Congress has passed the fewest Bills of all time is just a coincidence?

 

[jonessed]

Oh great. Now the Obama economy is on the Tea Party.

Well, it's a different subject than this thread, but partly yeah. Not completely.

So they aren't completely at fault? What a relief.

At least we have moved past blaming Bush... Or is he the other part .

 

[RCon]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

No, you ignored the part of the article where they double counted the contributions. That is, those contributions are already counted in the Heritage study.

That, and what humpback said. The CNN article said no such thing as the bolded, other than unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[humpback]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

 

[jonessed]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

You constantly label conservative thinking around the tea party, whatever the heck that is. I wish you would just drop bringing up the tea party on every issue and blaming them for everything. They are pretty much irrelevant except being a boogey man for the hard left. It is quite possible that now that the GOP has control over both houses that some kind of immigration bill will be passed, but it is unlikely it is anything that Obama would sign. Hopefully the GOP can work with the Dems and make it somewhat bi-partisan. We will see. The disagreement and gridlock between the two parties has zero to do with the tea party. It is legitimate difference of opinions on numerous issues based upon different values which people hold. There will always be hardcore people on both sides trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be, and the presence of some mystical tea party makes zero difference.

Wow. Let's see:1. The Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican party have become interchangeable. I use Tea Party for shorthand, but I could just as soon use conservative base.

2. I blame the conservative base for most of our current problems: again, not because of their ideology, much of which I don't disagree with, but because of their rigidity.

3. I do not believe the House and Senate will pass an immigration bill. The conservative base won't allow anything that gives illegals the ability to stay here. Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If they do pass something along those lines, I fully expect Obama to sign it. If he doesn't, then 100% of my criticism would fall on his shoulders. But I doubt it will get that far.

4. No you're wrong. There has never been this amount of lack of bipartisanship modern times. There has never been this lack of bipartisanship on the Democrat side. Since 2009, it's all been on the Republican side, and it's coming from the conservative base.

1. OK, we agree. That is how you use the term

2, 3 and 4. There has always been this amount of bipartisanship bickering and people taking hardline positions. Our history is filled with it and I am confused why you have never seen it before.

So the fact that the most recent Congress has passed the fewest Bills of all time is just a coincidence?

Is there a longstanding link between bipartisanship and quantity of bills passed? That would be interesting to see. I'm more of a quality, not quantity guy, but I'm open to any analysis.

 

[skol asylum]

Many conservatives here seem convinced that I am a diehard liberal, despite my denials, mostly because I attack the Tea Party so much. But I don't attack the Tea Party because of their ideology; I attack them because of their rigidity and refusal to legislate or compromise, which has more done so much to poison the political atmosphere in the last 6 years. No, Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for this poison; they've made mistakes, and deserve much criticism, but the main and overwhelming cause of most of our political problems now is the Tea Party conservative base of the GOP.

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.

And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.

Spot on.

 

[jon_mx]

Hey jon, I reject your labels, I reject your notion of me as close-minded, I reject your claim that I misrepresent conservative thinking. Why don't you state specifically what it is that you disagree with?

You constantly label conservative thinking around the tea party, whatever the heck that is. I wish you would just drop bringing up the tea party on every issue and blaming them for everything. They are pretty much irrelevant except being a boogey man for the hard left. It is quite possible that now that the GOP has control over both houses that some kind of immigration bill will be passed, but it is unlikely it is anything that Obama would sign. Hopefully the GOP can work with the Dems and make it somewhat bi-partisan. We will see. The disagreement and gridlock between the two parties has zero to do with the tea party. It is legitimate difference of opinions on numerous issues based upon different values which people hold. There will always be hardcore people on both sides trying to prevent the other side from gaining ground. That is the way it has always been, and probably always will be, and the presence of some mystical tea party makes zero difference.

Wow. Let's see:1. The Tea Party and the conservative base of the Republican party have become interchangeable. I use Tea Party for shorthand, but I could just as soon use conservative base.

2. I blame the conservative base for most of our current problems: again, not because of their ideology, much of which I don't disagree with, but because of their rigidity.

3. I do not believe the House and Senate will pass an immigration bill. The conservative base won't allow anything that gives illegals the ability to stay here. Obviously I hope I'm wrong. If they do pass something along those lines, I fully expect Obama to sign it. If he doesn't, then 100% of my criticism would fall on his shoulders. But I doubt it will get that far.

4. No you're wrong. There has never been this amount of lack of bipartisanship modern times. There has never been this lack of bipartisanship on the Democrat side. Since 2009, it's all been on the Republican side, and it's coming from the conservative base.

1. OK, we agree. That is how you use the term

2, 3 and 4. There has always been this amount of bipartisanship bickering and people taking hardline positions. Our history is filled with it and I am confused why you have never seen it before.

So the fact that the most recent Congress has passed the fewest Bills of all time is just a coincidence?

It is fabulous!

 

[squistion]

Latino voters overwhelmingly support Obama's immigration actions

It would be something of an understatement to say that Latino voters support President Obama's executive action on immigration:

The poll found that 89 percent of Latino voters support Obama’s decision to give temporary legal status to nearly five million undocumented immigrants.
That level of support surprised Latino Decisions co-founder Matt Barreto, who noted the figure is higher than initial support of the president’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected undocumented youth brought to the country as children from deportation and allowed them to receive work permits.



“
This is the most unified we have seen Latino public opinion on any issue,”
Barreto told BuzzFeed News. “DACA registered 84 percent, this is even higher. The White House was smart to put this step to protect parents—almost nobody in the Latino community is going to say they don’t support a policy to keep parents and children together.”

 

[timschochet]

Latino voters overwhelmingly support Obama's immigration actions

It would be something of an understatement to say that Latino voters support President Obama's executive action on immigration:

The poll found that 89 percent of Latino voters support Obama’s decision to give temporary legal status to nearly five million undocumented immigrants.
That level of support surprised Latino Decisions co-founder Matt Barreto, who noted the figure is higher than initial support of the president’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected undocumented youth brought to the country as children from deportation and allowed them to receive work permits.



“
This is the most unified we have seen Latino public opinion on any issue,”
Barreto told BuzzFeed News. “DACA registered 84 percent, this is even higher. The White House was smart to put this step to protect parents—almost nobody in the Latino community is going to say they don’t support a policy to keep parents and children together.”

Pretty much predicted this. But there were a few people in this thread who assured us that this would NOT be the case, among them Ditkaless Wonders, who attacked me for claiming to speak for Latinos (which I never did.)

 

[jon_mx]

It is funny that Tim sees the government shutdown as the most catestrophic event of our time. Its impact was minimal in reality. I can think of no long term impacts it had.

 

[RCon]

Don't forget the sequester cuts. I'm pretty sure those resulted in hurricanes, meteor showers, and nuclear strikes.

 

[timschochet]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

 

[jon_mx]

Many conservatives here seem convinced that I am a diehard liberal, despite my denials, mostly because I attack the Tea Party so much. But I don't attack the Tea Party because of their ideology; I attack them because of their rigidity and refusal to legislate or compromise, which has more done so much to poison the political atmosphere in the last 6 years. No, Obama and the Democrats are not to blame for this poison; they've made mistakes, and deserve much criticism, but the main and overwhelming cause of most of our political problems now is the Tea Party conservative base of the GOP.

This issue is a prime example. There are at least 11 million illegal immigrants living in this country. Realistically, we're not going to deport all these people. Even if we wanted to, we don't have the manpower or money to do it, and it would involve civil liberty violations which the American people will not accept. Yet the Tea Party base will accept no other alternative. They will not accept a short term path to citizenship. They will not accept a long term path to citizenship. They will not accept border security first and regularization later (as Rich Conway has proposed in this forum.) They will not accept allowing these people to stay, even if there is no path to citizenship. They will not accept ANY compromise on this issue. Like so many other issues, it's their way or the highway. And their way is: close the border, deport all illegals who are caught, change the laws so that their children born here can be deported as well. No deviation, no willingness to work with Dems or moderate Republicans on this issue.

And because since 2010 the Tea Party has come to dominate the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives. they have prevented John Boehner from calling a vote on the Senate Bill. Which puts us where we are- in chaos, just as we are on so many other issues.

Spot on.

A poop spot.

 

[timschochet]

Here's another great article from 2006- still very pertinent:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/

Illegal workers: good for U.S. economy
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say

 

[RCon]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Well, if that's not proof, I don't know what is. No, wait, that's not proof at all. That's just an unsubstantiated, made-up, opinion.

 

[Sammy3469]

Here's another great article from 2006- still very pertinent:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/

Illegal workers: good for U.S. economy
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say

Tim...just give up...when the other side just pu-pu's 2 CBO studies from 2013 because they don't agree with the conclusions, it doesn't matter much what you post.

 

[timschochet]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Well, if that's not proof, I don't know what is. No, wait, that's not proof at all. That's just an unsubstantiated, made-up, opinion.

You both just claimed that the sentence didn't even exist.

 

[timschochet]

Here's another great article from 2006- still very pertinent:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/

Illegal workers: good for U.S. economy
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say

Tim...just give up...when the other side just pu-pu's 2 CBO studies from 2013 because they don't agree with the conclusions, it doesn't matter much what you post.

I'm hoping that thoughtful people will read some of this stuff. Rich Conway is a guy whom I believe would change his mind if presented with facts and figures (as I would hope I would.) Humpack and Walking Boots and Strike are the sorts that will never change their minds on this issue no matter what new info comes out.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Here's another great article from 2006- still very pertinent:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/

Illegal workers: good for U.S. economy
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say

Tim...just give up...when the other side just pu-pu's 2 CBO studies from 2013 because they don't agree with the conclusions, it doesn't matter much what you post.

Or, conversely, when the other side just swallows everything the Obama Administration tells them - WITHOUT QUESTION - then it just doesn't matter what you post.

 

[Koya]

Chamber of Commerce types want to keep a free flow of cheap labor to the country to support agriculture and other jobs that supposedly the rest of us won’t do. And I honestly can see the advantage to this, I really can. It’s just not worth the heavy cost to all of us. It would be different if the corporate types were paying for the hospital and education fees and the welfare and prison costs, but are they? No. Also, I don’t believe that there are really jobs that Americans won’t do. I kind of think our kids have gotten lazy; it wouldn’t do them any harm to perform some of these menial chores. The bulk of the work could be done by immigrants, and if we need more than our current quota provides, then by all means let more in legally.

What about the fact that, legal or not, many "full time" jobs result in pay that necessitates gov't intervention in any case (i.e working at walmart and still need gov't assistance)"?

Can't have it both ways.

 

[RCon]

Here's another great article from 2006- still very pertinent:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration_economy/

Illegal workers: good for U.S. economy
The U.S. has benefited from illegal immigrants, most economists say

Back of the napkin calculations are always good proof too. Well, we estimate this, but only on top of this estimate over there, and on top of this other estimate that actually includes both legal and illegal immigration because we can't distinguish, etc...

 

[jon_mx]

If one understands payroll taxes, the level of income of most immigrant workers, and the earn-income tax credit.....any economist who suggest that is a big net positive for the treasury is either a complete moron or a lying shill.

 

[RCon]

I agree that I can't produce a report that shows illegals are a net benefit that you will accept. The stats and arguments presented by the University of Arizona, and by the article I posted yesterday, were enough for me. Apparently it's not enough for you.

And no, they won't leave on their own, no matter what you attempt to do. And if you did enforce the laws against our employers, you'd be severely damaging our economy with no gain.

What article from yesterday? You don't mean the one from last week from CNN, do you?

Yes. Didn't mean to write yesterday, thx.

Gotcha. The article referencing a study that shows illegal immigration is a massive net negative is enough to prove to you that it's actually a net positive. And you wonder why some people don't take you seriously? It's because you constantly ignore facts that you don't like.

No, you ignored the part of the article which clearly stated that illegals will NEVER cost more than they contribute. Yes the article mentioned the Heritage study, but it did so in the context of pointing out that the net effect, when we include the Social Security payments is positive. I have been willing to acknowledge again and again and again and again that illegals may cost the border states more than they take in (which is basically what Heritage was focused on) but that when we look at the entire country as a whole, they are a net benefit.

How can he ignore it when it doesn't exist? It's unreal how much #### you make up.

Here is the exact sentence from the article:

The truth is that undocumented immigrants contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits.

It's unreal how much #### you ignore.

Well, if that's not proof, I don't know what is. No, wait, that's not proof at all. That's just an unsubstantiated, made-up, opinion.

You both just claimed that the sentence didn't even exist.

You're right, I didn't remember it. But it's pure, unadulterated spin that is in no way supported by even the facts presented by the very same article.