Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
JoyinMudville

Trump Threatens to Shut Government To Force Dems to Pay for Wall He Said Mexico Would Pay For

333 posts in this topic

Unless they go after the demand side with the same gusto, it is all posturing. 

I would agree which is why guest worker programs need to be expanded and made more effective.  Seafood workers come to MD yearly, do their jobs and go home.  There is no reason that can't work in other areas.  Where there is work that Americans can't or won't do, we need to make some provisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.

Opinions from neutral sources should carry more weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions from neutral sources should carry more weight.

Does such a thing exist in 2017?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like I said.  Complaining about the source.  Naturally, open border folks will have their own "numbers" so what's the point?  Both will think the other wrong but common sense tells you that keeping out illegals saves money.  

 

Come on dawg...come on.  CIS!!!!   Look them up and the founder John Tanton I think his name is and FAIR.   Geeeeezzzz, CIS    :D

 

You would be more credible citing the Aryan Nation.  Come on V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions from neutral sources should carry more weight.

Media Matters is hardly neutral.  And if CATO were supporting the idea, you wouldn't think they were neutral, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree which is why guest worker programs need to be expanded and made more effective.  Seafood workers come to MD yearly, do their jobs and go home.  There is no reason that can't work in other areas.  Where there is work that Americans can't or won't do, we need to make some provisions.

Consider this:

 

"A study by economists Gihoon Hong of Indiana University South Bend and John McLaren of the University of Virginia concluded that by raising demand for goods and services in the communities where they take up residence, new immigrants serve to create 1.2 new jobs each and boost the pay of Americans. Cutting down on illegal immigration wouldn't save jobs, on net; it would eliminate them."

 

http://herald-review.com/steve-chapman-immigration-crackdown-sure-to-fail/article_86fdac68-c1f2-5120-b7bf-1b7aab32adc7.html

 

Increasingly, I wonder what the point is of all this anti-immigration rhetoric. Other than "its the law" there seems to be little reason for it.

 

I keep coming back to the White working class resentment that put Trump into the White House. Other than appealing to these people, I don't see the point.

 

Can you provide a rational purpose for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on dawg...come on.  CIS!!!!   Look them up and the founder John Tanton I think his name is and FAIR.   Geeeeezzzz, CIS    :D

 

You would be more credible citing the Aryan Nation.  Come on V

They have presented numbers.  The usual response would be to present countering numbers rather than attack the source.  That was my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media Matters is hardly neutral.  And if CATO were supporting the idea, you wouldn't think they were neutral, either.

The media matters source cites many studies, including one from Cato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media Matters is hardly neutral.  And if CATO were supporting the idea, you wouldn't think they were neutral, either.

 

Oh come off it and just admit it's only for that Trump likes it, therefore you just love it.  Just speak the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Consider this:

 

"A study by economists Gihoon Hong of Indiana University South Bend and John McLaren of the University of Virginia concluded that by raising demand for goods and services in the communities where they take up residence, new immigrants serve to create 1.2 new jobs each and boost the pay of Americans. Cutting down on illegal immigration wouldn't save jobs, on net; it would eliminate them."

 

http://herald-review.com/steve-chapman-immigration-crackdown-sure-to-fail/article_86fdac68-c1f2-5120-b7bf-1b7aab32adc7.html

 

Increasingly, I wonder what the point is of all this anti-immigration rhetoric. Other than "its the law" there seems to be little reason for it.

 

I keep coming back to the White working class resentment that put Trump into the White House. Other than appealing to these people, I don't see the point.

 

Can you provide a rational purpose for it?

Sure.  First it's the law and we are a nation of laws.  That's how this system works.  The response to an unpopular law is to have it changed, not to ignore it.  What if we spread that idea to lots of other areas?   Secondly, this rosy opinion ignores the billions spent on apprehension, prosecution, deportation and incarceration for illegal aliens here committing crimes.  The fewer illegal aliens, the fewer illegal alien criminals.  That doesn't mean all or most are criminals but by weeding them out and preventing new arrivals, we save a substantial amount of money that can go elsewhere.  Like I said, immigration is fine but it must be legal.

Edited by veritas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have presented numbers.  The usual response would be to present countering numbers rather than attack the source.  That was my point.

 

 

No need to present anything to counter CIS.  It self counters with no credibility.  Just right-wing K Street DC loonies --- FAIR - CIS.  Give me a break  :D   It's like needing to present information to counter that Mexico wasn't going to pay for the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come off it and just admit it's only for that Trump likes it, therefore you just love it.  Just speak the truth.

I see you want to meander off into the personal.  As if I only thought about illegal immigration in 2015.  Please, this is childish. Trump happens to be right on that issue and people like that someone finally brought it to the fore.  Whether it was Trump or someone else who did it, is irrelevant.  It needed to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sure. First it's the law and we are a nation of laws. That's how this system works. The response to an unpopular law is to have it changed, not to ignore it. What if we spread that idea to lots of other areas? Secondly, this rosy opinion ignores the billions spent on apprehension, prosecution, deportation and incarceration for illegal aliens here committing crimes. The fewer illegal aliens, the fewer illegal alien criminals. That doesn't mean all or most are criminals but by weeding them out and preventing new arrivals, we save a substantial amount of money that can go elsewhere. Like I said, immigration is fine but it must be legal.

Clearly, the law is not working.

 

So rather than defend the law which you really cannot defend, and, you can't (after all, more immigrants means less crime than more Americans does), why don't you express support for the law to be changed?

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's Wall will cost taxpayers a lot of money and solve nothing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to present anything to counter CIS.  It self counters with no credibility.  Just right-wing K Street DC loonies --- FAIR - CIS.  Give me a break  :D   It's like needing to present information to counter that Mexico wasn't going to pay for the wall.

How convenient.  So much easier to attack the other guy's credibility than actually counter his data.  That's how the left always operates.  It's why they shout down conservative speakers.  It's always easier than actually presenting a convincing case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How convenient.  So much easier to attack the other guy's credibility than actually counter his data.  That's how the left always operates.  It's why they shout down conservative speakers.  It's always easier than actually presenting a convincing case.

That's because the right just lies. You count counter alternative facts, and they shouldn't be normalized either. that's the problem the media normalizes the right's insanity and phobia of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, the law is not working.

 

So rather than defend the law which you really cannot defend, and, you can't (after all, more immigrants means less crime than more Americans does), why don't you express support for the law to be changed?

First off, the law has never been aggressively enforced.  How can it possibly be said not to work when nobody tries to seriously enforce it?  That's like leaving the vault door to the bank open and then claiming that vaults don't work when you get robbed. The question isn't why I don't want the law changed.  The question is why you want an open border and oppose our efforts to maintain our national sovereignty.  Nobody is calling for ending immigration, only properly controlling it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I see you want to meander off into the personal.  As if I only thought about illegal immigration in 2015.  Please, this is childish. Trump happens to be right on that issue and people like that someone finally brought it to the fore.  Whether it was Trump or someone else who did it, is irrelevant.  It needed to be done.

 

:D   Look up CIS.  Look up FAIR.   Look up John Tanton.  It was your source.  Nothing personal but if you take it that way, tough as I do not care.  I'm just telling you that your dodo source stinks.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is well aware of John Tanton and his ops....

Edited by BaySock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because the right just lies. You count counter alternative facts, and they shouldn't be normalized either. that's the problem the media normalizes the right's insanity and phobia of reality.

So, you also have nothing.  You can't claim them to be "alternative" facts until you convincingly present your own facts.  This seems fairly easy to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, the law is not working.

 

So rather than defend the law which you really cannot defend, and, you can't (after all, more immigrants means less crime than more Americans does), why don't you express support for the law to be changed?

No, clearly the law is not effectively enforced. Big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D   Look up CIS.  Look up FAIR.   Look up John Tanton.  It was your source.  Nothing personal but if you take that way, tough as I do not care.  I'm just telling you that you dodo source stinks.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is well aware of John Tanton and his ops....

What makes you think the SPLC is any less biased than CIS?  Everyone comes down somewhere and some other group will think they are nutty.  All that matters is whether the data adds up or not.  I don't care if Pee Wee Herman is presenting it.  The question is whether it is accurate.  The only way to get a handle on that is to see countering data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First off, the law has never been aggressively enforced. How can it possibly be said not to work when nobody tries to seriously enforce it? That's like leaving the vault door to the bank open and then claiming that vaults don't work when you get robbed. The question isn't why I don't want the law changed. The question is why you want an open border and oppose our efforts to maintain our national sovereignty. Nobody is calling for ending immigration, only properly controlling it.

 

I thought Obama set records deporting people. Those coming in are down to a trickle. We see Trump going after people who are productive workers, contributing to society. You said yourself we shouldn't go after these people. Studies show us that deporting them hurts the economy.

 

You said you supported legal immigration. Why not call for laws that make them legal?

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, clearly the law is not effectively enforced. Big difference.

He doesn't want it enforced.  That has come through clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Obama set records deporting people. Those coming in are down to a trickle. We see Trump going after people who are productive workers, contributing to society. You said yourself we shouldn't go after these people. You said you support legal immigration. Studies show us that deporting them huets tge economy.

 

You said you supported legal immigration. Why not call for laws that make them legal?

Some will be made legal.  Others will go.  I never said otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you also have nothing.  You can't claim them to be "alternative" facts until you convincingly present your own facts.  This seems fairly easy to understand.

I got plenty. Fact is "alternative facts" didn't appear in the American lexicon until this lying administration came into fruition. The mainstream media is normalizing a dangerous alternative reality that crazed alt-right wing media is pushing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0