Obama mulls large-scale move on immigration

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2014 12:03:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jul 30, 2014 9:29:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

interesting.  most here are employed by large agricultural concerns, hotels and food franchises.  they have automatic payroll systems.  that means that these folks pay payroll taxes, and SOME (admittedly not much) income tax, as well as worker's comp and a host of other taxes.

several organizations have estimated the revenues received by undocumented aliens, and compared it to services rendered.  even the most staunchly anti-immigrant ones say that over half the costs are covered.  some of the pro-immigrant ones claim that it is over 100% covered.  my own personal estimate is that it is somewhere around 80%

so, although it is true that they take more in services than they pay in taxes (as is the case with most CITIZENS in similar economic standing), it is NOT true that they are huge sucking siphons of public funds, as popular as it may be to say so.

Of course not.  The below stories (most with verifiable links) are just lies.  

Or better yet, wait for your school district to become over 30% ELL and see how well that works out for your kids.

www.examiner.com/article/illegal-aliens-cost-california-hospitals-more-than-1-billion-annually

that examiner piece is utter rubbish, race baiting, and some other things too foul for me to dignify with prose.

the cost of uninsured in CA is $12B.  that means that only 8% of that cost is "illegals".

the reason hospitals are going bankrupt is because of the UNINSURED, NOT BECAUSE OF "ILLEGALS".  you want to stop the problem?  make sure everyone has insurance.  duh.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2014 12:03:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jul 30, 2014 9:29:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

interesting.  most here are employed by large agricultural concerns, hotels and food franchises.  they have automatic payroll systems.  that means that these folks pay payroll taxes, and SOME (admittedly not much) income tax, as well as worker's comp and a host of other taxes.

several organizations have estimated the revenues received by undocumented aliens, and compared it to services rendered.  even the most staunchly anti-immigrant ones say that over half the costs are covered.  some of the pro-immigrant ones claim that it is over 100% covered.  my own personal estimate is that it is somewhere around 80%

so, although it is true that they take more in services than they pay in taxes (as is the case with most CITIZENS in similar economic standing), it is NOT true that they are huge sucking siphons of public funds, as popular as it may be to say so.

Of course not.  The below stories (most with verifiable links) are just lies. 

Captain:

i would appreciate it if you can't do better than to mock and ridicule, than simply skip my posts, ok?  i can prove everything i post here, or i won't post it.  you pointing out the cost side of the equation doesn't further the debate one bit.  you are not accounting for the taxes collected.  if you take the costs of "illegals", subtract the revenues that we get from them through payroll taxes (which are uncollectable, since they go to someone else's account), you get a number that is far less than what most conservatives think.

i have pointed out on many occasions that i am against illegal immigration.  my reasons for being against it have nothing to do with "cost" however.  it has to do with civil rights of "illegals", which are routinely violated (since they are in a no-man's land, legally speaking), and the fact that their presence in the workforce creates an unfair business advantage on the part of their employers.  so don't think, imply, or suggest that i am in favor of it.  i am not.

however, i prefer to debate these issues on sensible grounds.  the state of Texas studied this issue, and found that "illegals" contribute $18B in taxes and $1.2B in services in 2006.  even the most conservative, anti-immigration study i know of concluded that 60% of the costs of "illegals" are covered.  most other studies say that number is much higher.

if you want to argue against "illegals", be my guest.  but don't crap all over me because i want the argument to be sensible.

[Deleted]

Jul 30, 2014 13:11:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 30, 2014 12:03:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Of course not.  The below stories (most with verifiable links) are just lies. 

Captain:

i would appreciate it if you can't do better than to mock and ridicule, than simply skip my posts, ok?  i can prove everything i post here, or i won't post it.  you pointing out the cost side of the equation doesn't further the debate one bit.  you are not accounting for the taxes collected.  if you take the costs of "illegals", subtract the revenues that we get from them through payroll taxes (which are uncollectable, since they go to someone else's account), you get a number that is far less than what most conservatives think.

i have pointed out on many occasions that i am against illegal immigration.  my reasons for being against it have nothing to do with "cost" however.  it has to do with civil rights of "illegals", which are routinely violated (since they are in a no-man's land, legally speaking), and the fact that their presence in the workforce creates an unfair business advantage on the part of their employers.  so don't think, imply, or suggest that i am in favor of it.  i am not.

however, i prefer to debate these issues on sensible grounds.  the state of Texas studied this issue, and found that "illegals" contribute $18B in taxes and $1.2B in services in 2006.  even the most conservative, anti-immigration study i know of concluded that 60% of the costs of "illegals" are covered.  most other studies say that number is much higher.

if you want to argue against "illegals", be my guest.  but don't crap all over me because i want the argument to be sensible.

 Just a suggestion

.If you are able to prove everything you post here then you should try posting some links to prove your posts.

If you don't it can be interpreted as an opinion imo.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Right on WTF? Someone calls in a home invasion, a rape, a robbery, whatever- and you want the police to interrogate the victim first?

Have you ever reported a crime?  The responding officer already interrogates the victim, and both times I've had to do it they asked for my ID pretty early in the process.  For their records of course, and so they'd know how to get in touch with me.  If you're white and speak English the police are already asking for your ID pretty much whenever you interact with them.  If you're brown and speak Spanish they don't, because civil rights... and stuff.

I suppose I could have refused to provide it, and I'm not sure that it would have affected anything, other than making the cop wonder what I was trying to hide, and probably leading him to look it up on his own as soon as he got back to the station.

[Sum Dum Gai]

shawn- if i say "this will never happen", do i need to say why, or do you KNOW why?

I try not to say never, but the reason it won't be happening any time soon, if ever, is because the rich assholes who control our government through the billions they throw at politicians don't want it to happen.  They could honestly give a fuck if we become a third world country, as long as labor was cheap, they had a good market to sell shit to overseas, and the quarterly earnings and stock market looked good.

[The Captain]

Jul 30, 2014 13:11:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 30, 2014 12:03:00 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Of course not.  The below stories (most with verifiable links) are just lies. 

Captain:

i would appreciate it if you can't do better than to mock and ridicule, than simply skip my posts, ok?  i can prove everything i post here, or i won't post it.  you pointing out the cost side of the equation doesn't further the debate one bit.  you are not accounting for the taxes collected.  if you take the costs of "illegals", subtract the revenues that we get from them through payroll taxes (which are uncollectable, since they go to someone else's account), you get a number that is far less than what most conservatives think.

i have pointed out on many occasions that i am against illegal immigration.  my reasons for being against it have nothing to do with "cost" however.  it has to do with civil rights of "illegals", which are routinely violated (since they are in a no-man's land, legally speaking), and the fact that their presence in the workforce creates an unfair business advantage on the part of their employers.  so don't think, imply, or suggest that i am in favor of it.  i am not.

however, i prefer to debate these issues on sensible grounds.  the state of Texas studied this issue, and found that "illegals" contribute $18B in taxes and $1.2B in services in 2006.  even the most conservative, anti-immigration study i know of concluded that 60% of the costs of "illegals" are covered.  most other studies say that number is much higher.

if you want to argue against "illegals", be my guest.  but don't crap all over me because i want the argument to be sensible.

If you saw my refuting of your unsupported statement as mock and ridicule then you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  If you don't like my posts please feel free to block me, as that is your right.

If, however, you wish to engage in a honest debate then please provide some links to information that supports your position.  You have no problem calling out other posters who make unsupported statements, yet seem to take exception when the same is done to you.

Not quite sure where the rest of the "crap all over me" came from.  If you're having a bad day or something fine, but I don't see where you got that from my post.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2014 14:18:35 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Jul 30, 2014 13:11:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Captain:

i would appreciate it if you can't do better than to mock and ridicule, than simply skip my posts, ok?  i can prove everything i post here, or i won't post it.  you pointing out the cost side of the equation doesn't further the debate one bit.  you are not accounting for the taxes collected.  if you take the costs of "illegals", subtract the revenues that we get from them through payroll taxes (which are uncollectable, since they go to someone else's account), you get a number that is far less than what most conservatives think.

i have pointed out on many occasions that i am against illegal immigration.  my reasons for being against it have nothing to do with "cost" however.  it has to do with civil rights of "illegals", which are routinely violated (since they are in a no-man's land, legally speaking), and the fact that their presence in the workforce creates an unfair business advantage on the part of their employers.  so don't think, imply, or suggest that i am in favor of it.  i am not.

however, i prefer to debate these issues on sensible grounds.  the state of Texas studied this issue, and found that "illegals" contribute $18B in taxes and $1.2B in services in 2006.  even the most conservative, anti-immigration study i know of concluded that 60% of the costs of "illegals" are covered.  most other studies say that number is much higher.

if you want to argue against "illegals", be my guest.  but don't crap all over me because i want the argument to be sensible.

If you saw my refuting of your unsupported statement as mock and ridicule then you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

yes, i did.  when you say "i suppose these are all lies then", that is taunting.  don't be coy.

 If you don't like my posts please feel free to block me, as that is your right.

i don't block posts.  i ask for common courtesy, just like i give you.

If, however, you wish to engage in a honest debate

has nothing to do with what i wish.  i am always honest, bro.

then please provide some links to information that supports your position. 

sure thing.  revenues are discussed in section 3.2, here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Taxes_contributed
in section 2.2 of that page, the CBO study mentioned showed that there is negligible effect
at the federal level on revenues -vs- cost.  the cost to benefit analysis in section 5 is also good.

You have no problem calling out other posters who make unsupported statements, yet seem to take exception when the same is done to you.

not at all.  i respond to every request.  if i am unable to do so, i retract the point.

Not quite sure where the rest of the "crap all over me" came from.  If you're having a bad day or something fine, but I don't see where you got that from my post.

i might have overstated that.  you only crapped on a small part of me.  i am having a great day.  i leave on vacation in 22 hours. 

please let me know if you are not completely satisfied with my reply, and i will happily dig up the studies i was actually LOOKING for. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2014 13:22:33 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

shawn- if i say "this will never happen", do i need to say why, or do you KNOW why?

I try not to say never, but the reason it won't be happening any time soon, if ever, is because the rich assholes who control our government through the billions they throw at politicians don't want it to happen.  They could honestly give a fuck if we become a third world country, as long as labor was cheap, they had a good market to sell shit to overseas, and the quarterly earnings and stock market looked good.

spot on, shawn.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 30, 2014 13:19:46 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Jul 30, 2014 13:11:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Captain:

i would appreciate it if you can't do better than to mock and ridicule, than simply skip my posts, ok?  i can prove everything i post here, or i won't post it.  you pointing out the cost side of the equation doesn't further the debate one bit.  you are not accounting for the taxes collected.  if you take the costs of "illegals", subtract the revenues that we get from them through payroll taxes (which are uncollectable, since they go to someone else's account), you get a number that is far less than what most conservatives think.

i have pointed out on many occasions that i am against illegal immigration.  my reasons for being against it have nothing to do with "cost" however.  it has to do with civil rights of "illegals", which are routinely violated (since they are in a no-man's land, legally speaking), and the fact that their presence in the workforce creates an unfair business advantage on the part of their employers.  so don't think, imply, or suggest that i am in favor of it.  i am not.

however, i prefer to debate these issues on sensible grounds.  the state of Texas studied this issue, and found that "illegals" contribute $18B in taxes and $1.2B in services in 2006.  even the most conservative, anti-immigration study i know of concluded that 60% of the costs of "illegals" are covered.  most other studies say that number is much higher.

if you want to argue against "illegals", be my guest.  but don't crap all over me because i want the argument to be sensible.

 Just a suggestion

.If you are able to prove everything you post here then you should try posting some links to prove your posts.

If you don't it can be interpreted as an opinion imo.

i appreciate the advice, but digging up links takes time.  most people are not all that interested.  therefore i will ONLY provide them when someone asks me to do so.  that way, i don't use up bandwidth for our host, OR waste anyone's time if it is just me that has an obsession with the arcane details of federal supply and demand.