Welcome to Dem Land

[aj3647]

My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone in Alabama impacted by the devastating effects of Hurricane Sharpie. I'm not sure how they will ever recover.

[Shelby_]

FAIR is correct to include anchor baby costs. Illegal non-citizens who have their children here create costs to our taxpayers that would not exist if they had stayed home and had their children there. I already estimated that the grade 1-12 costs of illegal aliens totaled about $60T/year. They pay nowhere near that in taxes. The cost of taking Americans' jobs and driving down wages, lower wage scales and more unemployment compensation and welfare for Americans should also be factored into the taxpayer costs of subsidizing illegal non-citizens for their profiting employers.

It is a flawed study. Why doesn't anyone get this? Did you happen to notice the study wasn't submitted for peer review? Don't you wonder why not? The answer is obvious. It wouldn't pass peer revThis is an academic issue. It has nothing to do with my feelings about illegal immigration.

The study includes the welfare services provided to children of undocumented immigrants but does not account for the tax revenue these same children, who are legal citizens, will produce when they enter the workforce. If you count the costs, then you must count the benefits.

The cost of taking Americans' jobs and driving down wages, lower wage scales and more unemployment compensation and welfare for Americans should also be factored into the taxpayer costs of subsidizing illegal non-citizens for their profiting employers.

What planet are you living on? Where I work we cannot find Americans to fill the jobs we have, both highly skilled and unskilled.

[Richard]

^ maybe you should stop justifying spending billions on illegals and use the same money to train the workforce of Americans that surround you?

[Shelby_]

Exactly,try staying on topic,which was the cost born to the taxpayer for illegal immigration,you were the one going off on fair and posting links about legal immigrants and who supports them and whatever else you can throw in there.

Who cares about FAIR,who incidentally has many MDs,PHDs and EDQs on thier board,so I would take thier knowledge over some random person on the internet trying to dispute thier findings but yet unable to provide the proof.

Once again the topic was relating to the cost of illegals.

Pretty Simple subject.

Maybe you need a refresher. I asked you for a source for a statement you made. You cited the FAIR study.

Who cares about FAIR? Apparently you do. You have gone out of your way to defend their flawed methodology and error ridden study. Incidentally, I googled the names of the FAIR board: no MDs, 2 PhDs and I couldn't tell you how many EDQ's since I don't know what they are.

Apparently you've forgotten, I explained to you ad nauseam, I don't have to dispute FAIR's numbers. I've shown you their methodology is flawed.

I don't care if you dismiss my knowledge. What's troubling to me Richard is you believe what they say simply because you agree with their agenda. I would dispute the same methodology no matter who it came from and what it said because it is academically flawed.

[Shelby_]

Maybe I should have said "propping up". Here's an example:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...tion-about-joe

Interesting article. Thank you.

[Richard]

Maybe you need a refresher. I asked you for a source for a statement you made. You cited the FAIR study.

Who cares about FAIR? Apparently you do. You have gone out of your way to defend their flawed methodology and error ridden study. Incidentally, I googled the names of the FAIR board: no MDs, 2 PhDs and I couldn't tell you how many EDQ's since I don't know what they are.

Apparently you've forgotten, I explained to you ad nauseam, I don't have to dispute FAIR's numbers. I've shown you their methodology is flawed.

I don't care if you dismiss my knowledge. What's troubling to me Richard is you believe what they say simply because you agree with their agenda. I would dispute the same methodology no matter who it came from and what it said because it is academically flawed.

Still obsessed with FAIR and methodology when I provided you with real numbers to start your homework with that is indisputable.



But that is no surprise and indicative of why you guys will continue to lose,it is everybody else’s fault and they are always wrong.

[Shelby_]

Methodology is essential if accuracy is the desired result. Not so much if all you have is an agenda.

Thank you for reminding me of something I read many years ago.
Are you familiar with Plato's Apology?

Plato attributes the following to Socrates:

"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

[Richard]

Methodology is essential if an accuracy is the desired result. Not so much if all you have is an agenda.

Thank you for reminding me of something I read many years ago.
Are you familiar with Plato's Apology?

Plato attributes the following to Socrates:

"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."

You make it clear who has the agenda.

I will simplify it for you ... What is 2+2

Because that is all it is,plain and simple math.

Notice how you keep diverting the subject,that is called an agenda,I called that when you joined and 7 posts in 24 hours strictly anti Trump.

You were wrong when you posted and spread false information about sending kids to thier death.

I provided you with numbers directly from the source and you still refuse the recognize them.

That is on you and nobody else,even Socrates is face palming from the grave.

[oladub]

It is a flawed study. Why doesn't anyone get this? Did you happen to notice the study wasn't submitted for peer review? Don't you wonder why not? The answer is obvious. It wouldn't pass peer revThis is an academic issue. It has nothing to do with my feelings about illegal immigration.

The study includes the welfare services provided to children of undocumented immigrants but does not account for the tax revenue these same children, who are legal citizens, will produce when they enter the workforce. If you count the costs, then you must count the benefits.



What planet are you living on? Where I work we cannot find Americans to fill the jobs we have, both highly skilled and unskilled.

Shelby, It sounds like you are repeating some talking points. If this is an academic issue, are we common folk allowed to consider and vote on such things that have to be censored by experts? Your criticized FAIR for including the cost of educating anchor babies; a huge and real cost. I'm puzzled why you think it isn't a cost.

The children of Americans and legal non-citizens who immigrate will presumably produce future benefits. You miss the concept of legal vs. illegal. With near record high legal immigration, you failed to make the point that legal immigration is not sufficient to need any future population needs. The Trump boom will eventually end and unemployment will go back up to 6 or 10%. Booms always end. What are you going to do for American workers then let alone all your illegal workers who work for less?
Richard was right about, "maybe you should stop justifying spending billions on illegals and use the same money to train the workforce of Americans that surround you."

Today, Democratic Presidential Tulsi Gabbard made the following comments. There is at least one sane, pro-American Democrat.

GABBARD: I think it’s fair … I don’t, I don’t support open borders. Without secure borders, we don’t really have a country. And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say, ‘Well, open borders, that’s a conservative argument and that’s not really what’s being advocated for,’ if you look at some of the practical implications of some of the things they are pushing for, it is essentially open borders. [Emphasis added]
I think there are a few things we got to do when we’re talking about immigration reform. One is we’ve got to have secure borders. This is not Trump’s wall from sea to shining sea. It’s about seeing again what makes sense. I look at things from a practical, objective-oriented standpoint; I’m a soldier. So I look at, secure the borders, what’s our objective. In some places, it may make the most sense to have a wall or some kind of other physical barriers in place; in other places it won’t make sense. So you use technology and you use all the other tools that you have ultimately to accomplish that objective of security at the borders.

Is calling illegal non-citizens "undocumented immigrants" like calling bank robbers "accountless bank customers"?

[Shelby_]

Shelby, It sounds like you are repeating some talking points. If this is an academic issue, are we common folk allowed to consider and vote on such things that have to be censored by experts? Your criticized FAIR for including the cost of educating anchor babies; a huge and real cost. I'm puzzled why you think it isn't a cost.

I am repeating the same point. I'm just floored that something so obvious is so unclear to some.

I don't think it is accurate for FAIR to include legal citizens in their study, HOWEVER my feeling on the matter isn't that important. My complaint is if they count these kids in the debit column, they also need to add the contributions they will make when they become tax paying adults. They knowingly don't because their study won't be as shocking.

Let me be clear. I don't dispute the truth of the statement that illegal immigration costs taxpayers [[although I believe it's a red herring and an emotionally charged distraction, but that's for another day). My issue with the FAIR study is they've purposely used a flawed method to pad their result. Real researchers don't do that.

[oladub]

Shelby, Regarding "contributions", 40% of undocumented adults ages 18-24 do not complete high school compared with a national average dropout rate of 15.9% including illegals. As a group, dropouts cost taxpayers $1.8B/year. I'm puzzled about employment prospects for high school dropouts during future recessions and as robotization, other computerization, and self driving vehicles displace millions of workers. Relying on citizens and foreigners who come here legally, respecting our laws, seems a better bet.

[Canadian Visitor]

Shelby, Regarding "contributions", 40% of undocumented adults ages 18-24 do not complete high school compared with a national average dropout rate of 15.9% including illegals. As a group, dropouts cost taxpayers $1.8B/year. I'm puzzled about employment prospects for high school dropouts during future recessions and as robotization, other computerization, and self driving vehicles displace millions of workers. Relying on citizens and foreigners who come here legally, respecting our laws, seems a better bet.

Shelby will correct me if I'm wrong.............

But I don't believe her argument was that illegal immigrants writ large are net contributors to the U.S. [[that's a separate discussion).

Rather her argument was that if you issue an estimate of costs for a given group, that it should read as NET costs in order to provide the most useful and accurate data.

Ergo if you count the cost of someone's education; you must count the revenue from the taxes they pay.

Pick a side, EITHER side, count both, or count neither.

In counting both, you may well show a net cost; but it would obviously be less than when you don't adjust for any taxation revenue.

[Richard]

^ they do not differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants,to them they are one in the same.

Even in California’s budget report and in cross funding programs it is a simple ... regardless of immigration status.

[oladub]

Shelby will correct me if I'm wrong.............

But I don't believe her argument was that illegal immigrants writ large are net contributors to the U.S. [[that's a separate discussion).

Rather her argument was that if you issue an estimate of costs for a given group, that it should read as NET costs in order to provide the most useful and accurate data.

Ergo if you count the cost of someone's education; you must count the revenue from the taxes they pay.

Pick a side, EITHER side, count both, or count neither.

In counting both, you may well show a net cost; but it would obviously be less than when you don't adjust for any taxation revenue.

You're right. We both picked a side. I have a harder time entertaining utopian beliefs.

Shelby incorrectly claimed that illegal non-citizens or whatever she called them more than pay their way in taxes. Then she modified her position by claiming that eventually maybe, people who are raised and educated here, not necessarily their illegal parents, will more than return what taxpayers spent on them.

My position is that on a given year, educational and other illegal non-citizen costs exceeded taxes from illegals who do pay taxes. To begin with, it costs taxpayers more than $13,700/year annually for the average child in k-12 U.S. public schools. I take it back a step and compare that cost with what it would cost U.S. taxpayers if the same illegal couple had stayed home in their own countries where their children's educations would be paid for by taxpayers in those countries. [[zero).

Shelby failed to show why it was better to incentivize illegal immigration. She did not make any claim that the children of illegals were going to produce more taxes in their lifetime given their high school dropout rates than children of legal aliens who become citizens. Extending her logic and introducing the concept of legality, not acknowledged by Shelby, we should let in more legal immigrants, the more the better, because some day, in theory, their children will pay taxes. The more taxpayers the better and legal immigrants are more likely to have IT degrees and other skills. It follows that the children of legal non-aliens will eventually pay more taxes than the children of illegal non-citizens.

Shelby isn't alone. Only one Democratic presidential candidate believes we should control our borders. Others want to decriminalize immigration violations, abolish ICE, and incentivize illegality.

[Canadian Visitor]

Shelby failed to show why it was better to incentivize illegal immigration. She did not make any claim that the children of illegals were going to produce more taxes in their lifetime given their high school dropout rates than children of legal aliens who become citizens. Extending her logic and introducing the concept of legality, not acknowledged by Shelby, we should let in more legal immigrants, the more the better, because some day, in theory, their children will pay taxes. The more taxpayers the better and legal immigrants are more likely to have IT degrees and other skills. It follows that the children of legal non-aliens will eventually pay more taxes than the children of illegal non-citizens.

An argument I won't take up here, just at the moment; except to say, my impression on the immediate argument was that it was about studies/reports and whether the are using factually consistent data.

You can count tax revenue paid by the children of illegals or illegals themselves without changing your political position.

Its a question of having accurate information. You can oppose illegal immigration, or for that matter legal immigration or refugees no matter how much they cost or generate for the United States.

Just present the information accurately in a non-misleading way.

I haven't read these studies/reports myself, and so will refrain further from debating their methodologies/merits.

Shelby isn't alone. Only one Democratic presidential candidate believes we should control our borders. Others want to decriminalize immigration violations, abolish ICE, and incentivize illegality.

I happen to support appropriate border controls in my own, and any other country.

However, I am fascinated by the obsession of some with whether being in the country illegally ought to be 'criminal'.

For most of the history of the United States the act of overstaying a VISA or entering the U.S. without permission was not a criminal offense. That only changed in recent decades.

It was still ILLEGAL, as in against the law, and people who engaged in said behavior were still subject to deportation.

Illegally entering or remaining in Canada IS against the law, but is NOT a Criminal code offense. Its a a civil offense.

I'm not sure what's magical to some about the offense being under the Criminal law?


[[potential) Deportation either way.

By using civil law.........

You just eliminate any interim jail sentence on the way out the door; and swap a 'criminal record' for an 'immigration record' The information is there either way.

Story on this below, worth a perusal.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/26/187606...ocratic-debate

[jcole]

For most of the history of the United States the act of overstaying a VISA or entering the U.S. without permission was not a criminal offense. That only changed in recent decade

For most of the history of the United States, visas and passports weren't required at all. I believe that is a phenomenon that started in the late 1910's or 20's.

The Immigration Act of 1924 [[the Johnson-Reed Act) finally set up the first “consular control system,” which required that visas be obtained abroad from aU.S. consulate before admission.

[oladub]

CV, the first definition of 'crime' I came to is Google's.

CRIME - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.[COLOR=#878787 !important]"shoplifting was a serious crime"[/COLOR]

synonyms:

offense, unlawful act, illegal act, breach/violation/infraction of the law, misdemeanor, misdeed, wrong, felony, violation, transgression, fault, injury; More

• illegal activities.
  
  

Illegal parking is a crime. Immigration law violations are generally more serious. Misdemeanors are crimes punishable for up to one year in jail. Felonies for more than one year. The first time someone is caught being illegally in the U.S. is treated as a misdemeanor. More arrests for illegally entering the U.S., using false ID, driving without insurance and a license. and other immigration related infractions and immigration violations can add up to become crimes. I would like to see illegal males prosecuted for draft law violations but have never heard of that law being applied to illegals.

I read the Vox article. Tulsi Gabbard is correct about Castro and some of the other candidates being de facto supporters of open borders.

30 pictures and video to remember 9/11

Tomorrow is the anniversary of 9/11 in which 2,996 people lost their lives because of who our immigration policy let in including three crew members who overstayed their visas due to sloppy immigration enforcement. Tulsi Gabbard understands borders. 2,500 died at Pearl Harbor for comparison. Most of the 9/11 crew members were Saudi males. Within a couple of years of 9/11, W. Bush signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to let in another 10,000 [[male) Saudi students. Oil money must talk.

Peggy Noonan's outstanding homage to 9/11 heroes

[Zacha341]

...Only one Democratic presidential candidate believes we should control our borders. Others want to decriminalize immigration violations, abolish ICE, and incentivize illegality.

This is because they see these postures/ demands solely as refutations against Trump on several levels including garnering votes. Long term consequences be damned!

After all the justification/ obfuscation/ and what not where does the individual or family seeking to enter the US LEGALLY fall in here?

What must they be thinking?

[Zacha341]

To think the president has so much power [[to heck with what the citizens across the country want):

California Judge Reinstates Nationwide Injunction on Trump Asylum Rule

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/u...njunction.html

See pdf of ruling...

Judge restores nationwide block of asylum ban

[Canadian Visitor]

CV, the first definition of 'crime' I came to is Google's.

CRIME - an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.[COLOR=#878787 !important]"shoplifting was a serious crime"[/COLOR]

synonyms:

offense, unlawful act, illegal act, breach/violation/infraction of the law, misdemeanor, misdeed, wrong, felony, violation, transgression, fault, injury; More

• illegal activities.

Illegal parking is a crime. Immigration law violations are generally more serious. Misdemeanors are crimes punishable for up to one year in jail. Felonies for more than one year. The first time someone is caught being illegally in the U.S. is treated as a misdemeanor. More arrests for illegally entering the U.S., using false ID, driving without insurance and a license. and other immigration related infractions and immigration violations can add up to become crimes. I would like to see illegal males prosecuted for draft law violations but have never heard of that law being applied to illegals.

I read the Vox article. Tulsi Gabbard is correct about Castro and some of the other candidates being de facto supporters of open borders.

30 pictures and video to remember 9/11

Tomorrow is the anniversary of 9/11 in which 2,996 people lost their lives because of who our immigration policy let in including three crew members who overstayed their visas due to sloppy immigration enforcement. Tulsi Gabbard understands borders. 2,500 died at Pearl Harbor for comparison. Most of the 9/11 crew members were Saudi males. Within a couple of years of 9/11, W. Bush signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to let in another 10,000 [[male) Saudi students. Oil money must talk.

Peggy Noonan's outstanding homage to 9/11 heroes

Actually, illegal parking isn't a crime. Its merely against the law.

There is a difference. A violation of civil law does not get you a criminal record.

Its also quite rare for civil offenses to result in jail time, typically this would be the case only for flight risk/no bail; or contempt of court.

Its a distinction with a difference.

But in this particular instance, illegal immigration, where the goal is, one would assume, deportation.....its a distinction that really doesn't matter, since deportation would be the penalty under civil or criminal law.

Its merely that one one would be an immigration offense with jail only as an interim state to deportation; where the latter portends keeping the party in the U.S. longer via a jail sentence and affords a criminal record; and therefore costs a lot more.

**********

Do recall I oppose open borders, I just don't see any sense in wasting time on semantics; if the point is deportation, concede it belongs as a civil offense and be done with it. Besides, if you support strong border enforcement, surely that's a bargaining chip. ie. pragmatism should rule over sticking to principle [[right or wrong) and getting nothing.

*********

I'm not sure I understand what you're on about to do with 9/11.

Yes, it was a horrific incident; a crime etc.

However, it was committed by people who entered the U.S. lawfully, and who still can under Donald Trump.

One could nit pick the various security gaps.....but I rather think that when a flight school in FL reported to the FBI that 2 men were interested in flight lessons but didn't care about landings.............and nothing was done about that.......maybe that was a more crucial problem.

[oladub]

CV, I will waste a bit more of your time with semantics. The dictionary definition defined a crime as "an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law." Not that it matters too much but illegal parking is an offense that is punishable by law and so is, by dictionary definition, a crime.

Re: 9/11. That's tomorrow. My point was that the Immigration and nationality Act of 1965, as promoted by Teddy Kennedy and passed by both parties, inadvertently let in 9/11 crew members. Three of those crew members overstayed their visas and became illegal non-citizens. I do not honor them as "immigrants". They came here as assassins, not as immigrants. It does sometimes matter which groups of people are let in. Ask Native-Americans. Bin Laden's crews were all from Saudi Arabia except for one man from Egypt. I do not discredit W. Bush so much for 9/11. He was fairly new in office. However, his letting in an additional 10,000 Saudis to go to school here after 9/11 was inexcusable. FDR, in contrast, ended all immigration from all Axis countries immediately after Pearl Harbor. The business you mentioned about the flight school report being disregarded is an example of what I referred to as sloppy.

[Shelby_]

An argument I won't take up here, just at the moment; except to say, my impression on the immediate argument was that it was about studies/reports and whether the are using factually consistent data.

You can count tax revenue paid by the children of illegals or illegals themselves without changing your political position.

Its a question of having accurate information. You can oppose illegal immigration, or for that matter legal immigration or refugees no matter how much they cost or generate for the United States.

Just present the information accurately in a non-misleading way.

You got it. Thank you.

[Shelby_]

Shelby, Regarding "contributions", 40% of undocumented adults ages 18-24 do not complete high school compared with a national average dropout rate of 15.9% including illegals. As a group, dropouts cost taxpayers $1.8B/year. I'm puzzled about employment prospects for high school dropouts during future recessions and as robotization, other computerization, and self driving vehicles displace millions of workers. Relying on citizens and foreigners who come here legally, respecting our laws, seems a better bet.

The children you disrespectfully referred to as anchor babies are not undocumented. Like it or not, they are American citizens and would not be included in that statistic.

[Shelby_]

Richard did you happen to catch the three hours of testimony before the house oversight committee today? It was all about that non-existent delayed action status that wasn't revoked.

https://oversight.house.gov/legislat...red-action-for

[Shelby_]

^ they do not differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants,to them they are one in the same.

Even in California’s budget report and in cross funding programs it is a simple ... regardless of immigration status.

The FAIR study INCLUDES legal American citizens who are the children of illegal immigrants. If they want to include those kids fine, but they have to also include tax revenue generated by those same kids, WHO ARE LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS, when they enter the work force. The study doesn't do that. This isn't rocket science you guys.

I haven't said anything about the CA budget.