Republicans getting played on Immigration

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans are reflexively reacting like trained monkeys on the subject of immigration and losing a large, pro American, Conservative voting bloc in the process.

What kind of person risks life and limb to come here to make $10/hour AND SEND HALF OF BACK HOME TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY? To me, that's someone who would be a great benefit to this country, far more so than the snot-nosed, mini-Marxist Berkeley student whose parents wasted a fortune in tuition.

Think about who benefits this Country.

 

[gipper]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

 

[Eaglewings]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

Exactly Gipper..., I agree with you on this one..

I am in a area very populated with illegals..I don't mind because they do work very hard, except medical ect is so expensive they use the Emergency Rooms as a doctors office ( legally because the ER has to see anyone) and the prices are out of control expensive so the bills do not get paid which jacks up our price ... insurance , and taxes.

 

[pismoe]

deport them all , course its talk like that that i just said that will make these future possible residents dislike , maybe hate those that they percieve as being anti illegal / anti immigrant / anti imported third worlder .

 

[gipper]

deport them all , course its talk like that that i just said that will make these future possible residents dislike , maybe hate those that they percieve as being anti illegal / anti immigrant / anti imported third worlder .

I see your point. The thing is, they broke the law by coming here illegally. Either the government abides by the law, or it changes it.

Looks like an amnesty could be in the works...
John Kelly, DHS secretary, suggests Dreamer amnesty

 

[pismoe]

deport them all , course its talk like that that i just said that will make these future possible residents dislike , maybe hate those that they percieve as being anti illegal / anti immigrant / anti imported third worlder .

I see your point. The thing is, they broke the law by coming here illegally. Either the government abides by the law, or it changes it.

Looks like an amnesty could be in the works...
John Kelly, DHS secretary, suggests Dreamer amnesty

---------------------------------------------------Thanks but just read the link title , course i disagree with any amnesty . Some of the referenced group are murderers and the others are illegal and most will be looking for favors like bringing old decrepit 'granny' to the USA when they are amnestied . I don't let it concern me too much , i figure that the third world flood with its political and cultural changes will affect young parents and their kids that are in the USA Gipper .

 

[shockedcanadian]

Republicans are reflexively reacting like trained monkeys on the subject of immigration and losing a large, pro American, Conservative voting bloc in the process.

What kind of person risks life and limb to come here to make $10/hour AND SEND HALF OF BACK HOME TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY? To me, that's someone who would be a great benefit to this country, far more so than the snot-nosed, mini-Marxist Berkeley student whose parents wasted a fortune in tuition.

Think about who benefits this Country.

Of course you want the best, brightest and most ambitious, and they want to be in America, I can assure you. It has to be legal immigration though, it is the ILLEGAL immigration that is the issue with most I assume.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

 

[gipper]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

 

[pismoe]

hey SCanadian , just for the record i oppose ALL immigration , especially third world legal immigration . USA has a population of about 310 million not counting illegals in 2010 . As perspective we had about 200 million in 1970 . ---------------- i simply fail to see the benefits of more immigration of any type , especially third world for the average American person SCanadian .

 

[usmbguest5318]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

The thing is can any of them be believed?

??? I provided you with links to two original and empirical studies and to two derivative studies. All four contain references to other studies on a host of immigration and immigration-related topics. I suggest you embark upon your journey of discovery by first reading the last two documents to which I liked (they are the original studies) and then move to the first two. [1]

I suggest that approach only because you seem undertain of what to believe. The third and fourth studies/documents I linked are empirical; thus if you don't have material objections to the methodology (modelling), you need only next evaluate the author's inferences. If you can identify no material failings -- failings that do indeed alter the researcher obtained using the methodology s/he documented -- you must accept (logically, obviously, you personally don't actually have to do or think anything) the verity conclusions and findings. [2]

You can read other original studies on the matter if you want. Indeed, I encourage you to do so. You'll find an assortment of them noted in the references in the second document I noted.

Note:

1. Please don't make the child's error of not noting the date of writing/publication of the various works you read. If you read only the documents I cited, it won't matter. If you read documents noted in the footnotes and reference listings in the documents I cited, it might, depending on what you opt to read. I mention this only because I can recall there being three instances whereby, in the short time I've belonged to USMB, members have failed to do so when doing so was material to the merit of their assertions/position/argument. (I have no idea now who those members are. I just recall being shocked that they'd clearly, based on their comments, not paid attention to the dates.)
   
2. I don't know whether you've noticed or not, but economics research, along with that of other social sciences has, these days and as a result of abundant and easily obtained information processing capabilities, has become overwhelmingly empirical, that is to say, based on deductive, not inductive reasoning. The thing that distinguishes social sciences from natural sciences is that actions/thoughts of the humans upon whom social science remark are not consistently observed on the individual level, but en masse they are. Whereas rocks, stars, molecules, etc. of a given genre behave consistently from one instance/example to the next, the same same may or may not be so of, say, Bill and Mary, but "people" as whole do exhibit consistent behavior patterns provided they all have the same body of information to guide their behavior.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

Well, what do you want to learn about? "Immigration" or "illegal immigration?" The word "illegal" does not appear in your OP or title, and you didn't allude to illegal immigration in either. Why now have you narrowed the topic?

I suggest you develop a strong understanding of immigration economics before you worry about doing the same re: illegal immigration. The concepts and principles pertaining to the former are things one must know well to move to the more detailed matter of the latter.

Obviously, I'm suggesting a structured approach to the discovery process. If you want to follow a more nebulously organized approach, well, you'll need to do the work to make sure it's efficacy is no less good than is that of a structured approach.

 

[gipper]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

Well, what do you want to learn about? "Immigration" or "illegal immigration?" The word "illegal" does not appear in your OP or title, and you didn't allude to illegal immigration in either. Why now have you narrowed the topic?

I suggest you develop a strong understanding of immigration economics before you worry about doing the same re: illegal immigration. The concepts and principles pertaining to the former are things one must know well to move to the more detailed matter of the latter.

Obviously, I'm suggesting a structured approach to the discovery process. If you want to follow a more nebulously organized approach, well, you'll need to do the work to make sure it's efficacy is no less good than is that of a structured approach.

???

Not my op and not my title.

You appear to be arguing with yourself.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What kind of person risks life and limb to come here to make $10/hour AND SEND HALF OF BACK HOME TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY? To me, that's someone who would be a great benefit to this country, far more so than the snot-nosed, mini-Marxist Berkeley student whose parents wasted a fortune in tuition.

.

Montezuma's Revenge

It's easy to support this cheap-labor invasion if you push the absurdity that the Antifa scum the exact opposite of your precious illegals. The more of them come here, the more the United States will turn into a rathole like Mexico.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

Well, what do you want to learn about? "Immigration" or "illegal immigration?" The word "illegal" does not appear in your OP or title, and you didn't allude to illegal immigration in either. Why now have you narrowed the topic?

I suggest you develop a strong understanding of immigration economics before you worry about doing the same re: illegal immigration. The concepts and principles pertaining to the former are things one must know well to move to the more detailed matter of the latter.

Obviously, I'm suggesting a structured approach to the discovery process. If you want to follow a more nebulously organized approach, well, you'll need to do the work to make sure it's efficacy is no less good than is that of a structured approach.

???

Not my op and not my title.

You appear to be arguing with yourself.

Ooops...My mistake. I am not conversing with myself. Yours is the first thread post I see; thus I mistakenly thought you were the OP-er. I didn't look at the post number, which, normally, I do. I'm sorry.

That's not to say what I wrote is substantively not indicative of my thoughts, but rather that I recognize my mistake in specifically having attributed the OP and thread title to you.

 

[usmbguest5318]

One would have to be blind not see who is doing the hard dirty work, in this country. Many Mexicans and other illegals work their asses off, for little pay doing tough jobs.

That said, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY, to determine what they add and subtract to our nation. No doubt many are on welfare, while using our schools and healthcare system. On the other hand, they are paying taxes of all kinds...some such as Social Security, will not benefit them.

a cost benefit analysis would need to be done FAIRLY

That analysis has already been done. and not by just one person:

• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (1)
• The Costs and Benefits of Immigration (2)
• The content of the following two documents for the basis for arguments made by both the conservative CIS and liberal MPI, most likely because the documents' author is recognized by all as the foremost researcher and authority on the economics of immigration. The two noted organizations "cherry pick" various elements of each document and use the selected passages (or inferences of varying degrees of soundness/rigor drawn from them) to advocate for very different policies on immigration, typically by referring to, as befits each organization's normative framework and objectives, either one or several costs or one or several benefits of immigration. [1]
  • The Economic Analysis of Immigration
  • Immigration Economics

I won't tell you what you'll find by reading the documents above -- I don't want to instill in your mind any degree of parti pris with regard to what I would or would not say. I think, however, that after your having read the documents, you'll arrive at the same overall conclusions I did.



Note:

1. I'm not especially keen on either the CIS or MPI for they both have an "axe to grind," and, respectively, those "axes" are their very raisons d'etre.

I know many have analyzed it. The thing is can any of them be believed? Which I why I posted the word FAIRLY, in my initial post. Nearly everything on the illegal issue, has been politicized by both sides.

The thing is can any of them be believed?

??? I provided you with links to two original and empirical studies and to two derivative studies. All four contain references to other studies on a host of immigration and immigration-related topics. I suggest you embark upon your journey of discovery by first reading the last two documents to which I liked (they are the original studies) and then move to the first two. [1]

I suggest that approach only because you seem undertain of what to believe. The third and fourth studies/documents I linked are empirical; thus if you don't have material objections to the methodology (modelling), you need only next evaluate the author's inferences. If you can identify no material failings -- failings that do indeed alter the researcher obtained using the methodology s/he documented -- you must accept (logically, obviously, you personally don't actually have to do or think anything) the verity conclusions and findings. [2]

You can read other original studies on the matter if you want. Indeed, I encourage you to do so. You'll find an assortment of them noted in the references in the second document I noted.

Note:

1. Please don't make the child's error of not noting the date of writing/publication of the various works you read. If you read only the documents I cited, it won't matter. If you read documents noted in the footnotes and reference listings in the documents I cited, it might, depending on what you opt to read. I mention this only because I can recall there being three instances whereby, in the short time I've belonged to USMB, members have failed to do so when doing so was material to the merit of their assertions/position/argument. (I have no idea now who those members are. I just recall being shocked that they'd clearly, based on their comments, not paid attention to the dates.)
   
2. I don't know whether you've noticed or not, but economics research, along with that of other social sciences has, these days and as a result of abundant and easily obtained information processing capabilities, has become overwhelmingly empirical, that is to say, based on deductive, not inductive reasoning. The thing that distinguishes social sciences from natural sciences is that actions/thoughts of the humans upon whom social science remark are not consistently observed on the individual level, but en masse they are. Whereas rocks, stars, molecules, etc. of a given genre behave consistently from one instance/example to the next, the same same may or may not be so of, say, Bill and Mary, but "people" as whole do exhibit consistent behavior patterns provided they all have the same body of information to guide their behavior.

...failings that do indeed alter the researcher obtained using the methodology s/he documented..

Correction:

The passage above should have been written to say "...failings that do indeed alter significantly the results the researcher obtained using the methodology s/he documented...​