Why Shouldnt DACA Illegal Aliens Be Deported

[Winston]

I will give you 500 billion reasons not to deport the dreamers. 500 billion dollars, that is the estimated loss to GDP over ten years if we lose the dreamers. 97% of DACA recipients are either employed or in school. Pretty sure white native Americans between the ages of 16 and 31 could not approach that number.

They start businesses. Eight percent of DACA recipients over 25 have started their own business, five percent of all recipients have. Contrast that with just three percent of American citizens that start a business. The whole Republican support of small businesses seems to ring a little hollow when contrasted with those statistics.

The estimated cost to business of replacing the DACA recipients that would be deported is 6.3 billion dollars. 6.3 billion dollars to recruit, hire, and train their replacements.

But most importantly, well the dreamers are children of immigrants. Every single American Nobel prize winner in the fields of Economics and Science in 2016 was a child of an immigrant. Forty percent, FORTY FLIPPING PERCENT, of the Fortune 500 companies were founded by children of immigrants. The fact of the matter is that this country now, as always, gets it's strength, from immigrants. Birth right citizenship is the one true example of American exceptionalism. And without those immigrants, and the children they bear, this nation would be experiencing a negative birth rate and a rapidly aging population. In short, an empire in decline. Without those immigrants and their children there would be almost nobody to pay for future Social Security benefits.

 

[edthecynic]

DACA is an executive order that was illegally enacted byBarrack Obama

You know, you pathological liars keep saying that, but the truth is no court has EVER declared it so!!!!!!!
The one case brought against DACA was thrown out!

the judge in that case ruled ... jurisdictional problems.

thank you for confirming that the case was thrown out, and never brought back.

 

[protectionist]

I will give you 500 billion reasons not to deport the dreamers. 500 billion dollars, that is the estimated loss to GDP over ten years if we lose the dreamers. 97% of DACA recipients are either employed or in school. Pretty sure white native Americans between the ages of 16 and 31 could not approach that number.

They start businesses. Eight percent of DACA recipients over 25 have started their own business, five percent of all recipients have. Contrast that with just three percent of American citizens that start a business. The whole Republican support of small businesses seems to ring a little hollow when contrasted with those statistics.

The estimated cost to business of replacing the DACA recipients that would be deported is 6.3 billion dollars. 6.3 billion dollars to recruit, hire, and train their replacements.

But most importantly, well the dreamers are children of immigrants. Every single American Nobel prize winner in the fields of Economics and Science in 2016 was a child of an immigrant. Forty percent, FORTY FLIPPING PERCENT, of the Fortune 500 companies were founded by children of immigrants. The fact of the matter is that this country now, as always, gets it's strength, from immigrants. Birth right citizenship is the one true example of American exceptionalism. And without those immigrants, and the children they bear, this nation would be experiencing a negative birth rate and a rapidly aging population. In short, an empire in decline. Without those immigrants and their children there would be almost nobody to pay for future Social Security benefits.

Lots of statements. ZERO EVIDENCE. I will accept exactly that much of this post. ZERO.

Now here's a statement that I WILL present evidence for. That immigrants cause a LOSS from our economy of $138 TRILLION over 10 years (ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$. $138,165,000,000 in remittances was sent from United States to other countries in 2016

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The country does NOT get its strength from immigrants. This may have been partially true in the long past, but immigrants into the uS today represent a new 21st century form of imperialism that countries are waging against the US (top 4 > Mexico, China, India, Philipinnes)

Many advocates of high immigration argue that it fundamentally changes the nation’s age structure, and is very helpful in solving the problem of an aging society. Demographic data, however, show that immigration has only a very small impact on the problem. While immigrants do tend to arrive relatively young, and have higher fertility than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nation’s age structure. The debate over immigration should focus on other areas where it actually has a significant effect.

Among this Backgrounder’s findings:

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.
• In 2000 66.2 percent of the population was of working-age (15 to 64). Excluding post-1980 immigrants it is 64.6 percent.
• Looking at the full impact of post-1980 immigrants reveals that if they and all their U.S.-born children are not counted, the working-age share would have been 65.9 percent in 2000, almost exactly the same as the 66.20 percent when they are all included.
• Immigration also does not explain the relatively high U.S. fertility rate. In 2000 the U.S. fertility rate was 2.1 children per woman, compared to 1.4 for Europe, but if all immigrants are excluded the rate would still have been 2.0.
• Looking to the future, Census Bureau projections indicate that if net immigration averaged 100,000 to 200,000 annually, the working age share would be 58.7 percent in 2060, while with net immigration of roughly 900,000 to one million, it would be 59.5 percent.
• Census projections are buttressed by Social Security Administration (SAA) estimates showing that, over the next 75 years, net annual legal immigration of 800,000 a year versus 350,000 would create a benefit equal to only 0.77 percent of the program’s projected expenditures.
• It is not clear that even this tiny benefit exists, because SSA assumes legal immigrants will have earnings and resulting tax payments as high as natives from the moment they arrive, which is contrary to a large body of research.

Immigration in an Aging Society

 

[protectionist]

thank you for confirming that the case was thrown out, and never brought back.

Once again, > When DACA was challenged by members of an ICE public sector union in 2012, the Obama DOJ attempted to argue that “shall” in the above section actually meant “may.” Showing a respect for the English language, the judge in that case ruled that “shall” really did mean “shall” and would have struck down DACA but for jurisdictional problems. Were you of the notion that judges always make correct judgements, and never make faulty if not idiotic) ones ?

 

[Winston]

I will give you 500 billion reasons not to deport the dreamers. 500 billion dollars, that is the estimated loss to GDP over ten years if we lose the dreamers. 97% of DACA recipients are either employed or in school. Pretty sure white native Americans between the ages of 16 and 31 could not approach that number.

They start businesses. Eight percent of DACA recipients over 25 have started their own business, five percent of all recipients have. Contrast that with just three percent of American citizens that start a business. The whole Republican support of small businesses seems to ring a little hollow when contrasted with those statistics.

The estimated cost to business of replacing the DACA recipients that would be deported is 6.3 billion dollars. 6.3 billion dollars to recruit, hire, and train their replacements.

But most importantly, well the dreamers are children of immigrants. Every single American Nobel prize winner in the fields of Economics and Science in 2016 was a child of an immigrant. Forty percent, FORTY FLIPPING PERCENT, of the Fortune 500 companies were founded by children of immigrants. The fact of the matter is that this country now, as always, gets it's strength, from immigrants. Birth right citizenship is the one true example of American exceptionalism. And without those immigrants, and the children they bear, this nation would be experiencing a negative birth rate and a rapidly aging population. In short, an empire in decline. Without those immigrants and their children there would be almost nobody to pay for future Social Security benefits.

Lots of statements. ZERO EVIDENCE. I will accept exactly that much of this post. ZERO.

Now here's a statement that I WILL present evidence for. That immigrants cause a LOSS from our economy of $138 TRILLION over 10 years (ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$. $138,165,000,000 in remittances was sent from United States to other countries in 2016

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The country does NOT get its strength from immigrants. This may have been partially true in the long past, but immigrants into the uS today represent a new 21st century form of imperialism that countries are waging against the US (top 4 > Mexico, China, India, Philipinnes)

Many advocates of high immigration argue that it fundamentally changes the nation’s age structure, and is very helpful in solving the problem of an aging society. Demographic data, however, show that immigration has only a very small impact on the problem. While immigrants do tend to arrive relatively young, and have higher fertility than natives, immigrants age just like everyone else, and the differences with natives are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nation’s age structure. The debate over immigration should focus on other areas where it actually has a significant effect.

Among this Backgrounder’s findings:

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.
• In 2000 66.2 percent of the population was of working-age (15 to 64). Excluding post-1980 immigrants it is 64.6 percent.
• Looking at the full impact of post-1980 immigrants reveals that if they and all their U.S.-born children are not counted, the working-age share would have been 65.9 percent in 2000, almost exactly the same as the 66.20 percent when they are all included.
• Immigration also does not explain the relatively high U.S. fertility rate. In 2000 the U.S. fertility rate was 2.1 children per woman, compared to 1.4 for Europe, but if all immigrants are excluded the rate would still have been 2.0.
• Looking to the future, Census Bureau projections indicate that if net immigration averaged 100,000 to 200,000 annually, the working age share would be 58.7 percent in 2060, while with net immigration of roughly 900,000 to one million, it would be 59.5 percent.
• Census projections are buttressed by Social Security Administration (SAA) estimates showing that, over the next 75 years, net annual legal immigration of 800,000 a year versus 350,000 would create a benefit equal to only 0.77 percent of the program’s projected expenditures.
• It is not clear that even this tiny benefit exists, because SSA assumes legal immigrants will have earnings and resulting tax payments as high as natives from the moment they arrive, which is contrary to a large body of research.

Immigration in an Aging Society

Dreamers contribute to our economy

There is your "evidence". Now, to your points. First remittances. Guess you haven't had an economics course. Those dollars flowing out of the US actually benefit you and the country. Perhaps more importantly, they can be damaging to the receiving country's economy. It is basic economics but feel free to do your own research. There are numerous white papers documenting both the effect of those remittances on the sending and receiving country's economy. But here in the United States it has been shown that those foreign remittances have done more to keep inflation under control than the suppression of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. Think about it, it is common sense. If those dollars remain here it is more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and the definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. On the flip side, well in the receiving country there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Check out Mexico, they had a sixteen year high inflation rate in December of 2017, 6.77%.

Mexico Inflation Rate | 1974-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

But now, to your study from the Center for Immigration Studies. That is just it, studies from the CIS are consistently debunked by academics, think tanks, and immigration research organizations. They are known for extremist nativist views and are suspected of being little more than an offshoot of white supremacist groups like the KKK. I would advise you not to produce such bullshit in a serious debate. For instance,

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.

I suppose you believe those two statements support your position. Ironically, they do not. The first statements informs you that the average immigrant is actually older than the average native. So when remove those "older" people from the census numbers the average age increases by four months. WTF. And a 39 year old immigrant that arrived in 1980 was 59 in 2000, and he was REMOVED from the numbers. It is not the immigrants that are keeping the average age down, it is their children, as shown here,

This growth has been driven entirely by the increasing numbers of babies born to immigrant women. In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11% during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014

Births Outside of Marriage Decline for Immigrant Women

Did you get that? US birth increases was ENTIRELY driven by immigrants. The impact can be seen here,

Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing

 

[protectionist]

Dreamers contribute to our economy

There is your "evidence". Now, to your points. First remittances. Guess you haven't had an economics course. Those dollars flowing out of the US actually benefit you and the country. Perhaps more importantly, they can be damaging to the receiving country's economy. It is basic economics but feel free to do your own research. There are numerous white papers documenting both the effect of those remittances on the sending and receiving country's economy. But here in the United States it has been shown that those foreign remittances have done more to keep inflation under control than the suppression of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. Think about it, it is common sense. If those dollars remain here it is more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and the definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. On the flip side, well in the receiving country there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Check out Mexico, they had a sixteen year high inflation rate in December of 2017, 6.77%.

Mexico Inflation Rate | 1974-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

But now, to your study from the Center for Immigration Studies. That is just it, studies from the CIS are consistently debunked by academics, think tanks, and immigration research organizations. They are known for extremist nativist views and are suspected of being little more than an offshoot of white supremacist groups like the KKK. I would advise you not to produce such bullshit in a serious debate. For instance,

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.

I suppose you believe those two statements support your position. Ironically, they do not. The first statements informs you that the average immigrant is actually older than the average native. So when remove those "older" people from the census numbers the average age increases by four months. WTF. And a 39 year old immigrant that arrived in 1980 was 59 in 2000, and he was REMOVED from the numbers. It is not the immigrants that are keeping the average age down, it is their children, as shown here,

This growth has been driven entirely by the increasing numbers of babies born to immigrant women. In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11% during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014

Births Outside of Marriage Decline for Immigrant Women

Did you get that? US birth increases was ENTIRELY driven by immigrants. The impact can be seen here,

Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing

Your link source is simply BUNK. Of course DACAs don't contribute to our economy. We get LESS tax $$ from them same as any other illegal aliens becasue, as I said (some people have to be told twice) >>

1. Many illegals work off the books (zero tax $ paid)

2. Illegals work for lower wages than Americans (less tax $ paid)

3. Immigrants (legal & illegal extract 138 TRILLION over 10 years OUT OF OUR ECONOMY ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$.

Strike 1....Strike 2.....Strike 3

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The fallacy of immigrationists is that they claim that low wage immigrants "contribute" by working and paying taxes. The part they leave out is that this work is in REPLACEMENT OF American workers who would have higher wages, pay MORE tax, and don't work off the books.

To say illegals "contribute" is like saying I will contribute to the ASPCA with my contribution of $70, INSTEAD OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION of $100. Conclusion: LOSS of $30 for the ASPCA.

 

[Winston]

Dreamers contribute to our economy

There is your "evidence". Now, to your points. First remittances. Guess you haven't had an economics course. Those dollars flowing out of the US actually benefit you and the country. Perhaps more importantly, they can be damaging to the receiving country's economy. It is basic economics but feel free to do your own research. There are numerous white papers documenting both the effect of those remittances on the sending and receiving country's economy. But here in the United States it has been shown that those foreign remittances have done more to keep inflation under control than the suppression of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. Think about it, it is common sense. If those dollars remain here it is more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and the definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. On the flip side, well in the receiving country there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Check out Mexico, they had a sixteen year high inflation rate in December of 2017, 6.77%.

Mexico Inflation Rate | 1974-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

But now, to your study from the Center for Immigration Studies. That is just it, studies from the CIS are consistently debunked by academics, think tanks, and immigration research organizations. They are known for extremist nativist views and are suspected of being little more than an offshoot of white supremacist groups like the KKK. I would advise you not to produce such bullshit in a serious debate. For instance,

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.

I suppose you believe those two statements support your position. Ironically, they do not. The first statements informs you that the average immigrant is actually older than the average native. So when remove those "older" people from the census numbers the average age increases by four months. WTF. And a 39 year old immigrant that arrived in 1980 was 59 in 2000, and he was REMOVED from the numbers. It is not the immigrants that are keeping the average age down, it is their children, as shown here,

This growth has been driven entirely by the increasing numbers of babies born to immigrant women. In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11% during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014

Births Outside of Marriage Decline for Immigrant Women

Did you get that? US birth increases was ENTIRELY driven by immigrants. The impact can be seen here,

Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing

Your link source is simply BUNK. Of course DACAs don't contribute to our economy. We get LESS tax $$ from them same as any other illegal aliens becasue, as I said (some people have to be told twice) >>

1. Many illegals work off the books (zero tax $ paid)

2. Illegals work for lower wages than Americans (less tax $ paid)

3. Immigrants (legal & illegal extract 138 TRILLION over 10 years OUT OF OUR ECONOMY ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$.

Strike 1....Strike 2.....Strike 3

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The fallacy of immigrationists is that they claim that low wage immigrants "contribute" by working and paying taxes. The part they leave out is that this work is in REPLACEMENT OF American workers who would have higher wages, pay MORE tax, and don't work off the books.

To say illegals "contribute" is like saying I will contribute to the ASPCA with my contribution of $70, INSTEAD OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION of $100. Conclusion: LOSS of $30 for the ASPCA.

I can see Economics is not your strong suit. You seem hung up on those remittances, but ask yourself, what happens if all that money is kept here? The work for those dollars has already been done. No extra goods will be produced. Additional dollars chasing the same amount of goods, what happens?

Working off the books. Do you really think citizens don't work off the books given the opportunity? I know I have. I know my sister lived in New York City and worked off the books for seven years. It is called the shadow economy and it is estimated to be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS a year. Do you really want to make the claim that it is all immigrants?

Trillions Earned Under Table As More Work Off Radar

But now to your first two claims. It is an interesting thing, some states have a large immigrant population and some states hardly have any. That provides a great opportunity to study the impact of those immigrants on wages and productivity. Here is what they found,

First, immigrants do not crowd-out employment of (or hours worked by) natives; they add to total employment and reduce the share of highly educated workers, because of their larger share of low-skilled relative to native workers. Second, immigrants increase total factor productivity. These productivity gains may arise because of the more efficient allocation of skills to tasks, as immigrants are allocated to manual-intensive jobs, promoting competition and pushing natives to perform communication-intensive tasks more efficiently. Indeed, a measure of task-specialization of native workers induced by immigrants explains half to two thirds of the positive effect on productivity.

Third, Peri finds that inflows of immigrants decrease capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies. The decrease in capital intensity comes from an increase in total factor productivity; the capital-to-labor ratio remains unchanged because investment rises coincident with the inflow of immigrants. The reduction in the skill-intensity of production occurs as immigrants influence the choice of production techniques toward those that more efficiently use less educated workers and are less capital intensive.

Finally, Peri finds that for less educated natives, higher immigration has very little effect on wages, while for highly educated natives, the wage effect of higher immigration is positive. In summary, he finds that a one percent increase in employment in a US state, attributable only to immigration, is associated with a 0.4 to 0.5 percent increase in income per worker in that state.

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar10/w15507.html

Now, I don't have a lot of confidence that you understand the above quote. Later tonight I will be happy to explain what it means and provide examples. But for the moment I believe you can understand the last bit, a one percent increase in immigration results in an almost half a percent increase in wages PER WORKER. They don't decrease wages, they actually increase them, mostly due to increases in productivity.

And I can tell you something. Some of the jobs they do few, if any citizens, are going to do them at any wage. My son spent two summers doing field work. He and his friend were the only non-Hispanic people on the crews. And it was easy to get the "job". You just showed up at a field before the sun came up and worked your ass off till the sun went down. He got paid cash, and he and his friend made more money those summers than any of their fellow high school students. So why didn't more of them show up?

And he benefited more than just his income. It taught him about hard work, it taught him about respecting those immigrants, and most of all, well it taught him about discipline. That is why he is now 22, living in his own home in a upper class neighborhood and making more money than the average Harvard graduate. He will be the first to tell you that it is in no small part due to those summers in the fields.

 

[protectionist]

Dreamers contribute to our economy

There is your "evidence". Now, to your points. First remittances. Guess you haven't had an economics course. Those dollars flowing out of the US actually benefit you and the country. Perhaps more importantly, they can be damaging to the receiving country's economy. It is basic economics but feel free to do your own research. There are numerous white papers documenting both the effect of those remittances on the sending and receiving country's economy. But here in the United States it has been shown that those foreign remittances have done more to keep inflation under control than the suppression of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. Think about it, it is common sense. If those dollars remain here it is more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and the definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. On the flip side, well in the receiving country there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Check out Mexico, they had a sixteen year high inflation rate in December of 2017, 6.77%.

Mexico Inflation Rate | 1974-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

But now, to your study from the Center for Immigration Studies. That is just it, studies from the CIS are consistently debunked by academics, think tanks, and immigration research organizations. They are known for extremist nativist views and are suspected of being little more than an offshoot of white supremacist groups like the KKK. I would advise you not to produce such bullshit in a serious debate. For instance,

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.

I suppose you believe those two statements support your position. Ironically, they do not. The first statements informs you that the average immigrant is actually older than the average native. So when remove those "older" people from the census numbers the average age increases by four months. WTF. And a 39 year old immigrant that arrived in 1980 was 59 in 2000, and he was REMOVED from the numbers. It is not the immigrants that are keeping the average age down, it is their children, as shown here,

This growth has been driven entirely by the increasing numbers of babies born to immigrant women. In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11% during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014

Births Outside of Marriage Decline for Immigrant Women

Did you get that? US birth increases was ENTIRELY driven by immigrants. The impact can be seen here,

Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing

Your link source is simply BUNK. Of course DACAs don't contribute to our economy. We get LESS tax $$ from them same as any other illegal aliens becasue, as I said (some people have to be told twice) >>

1. Many illegals work off the books (zero tax $ paid)

2. Illegals work for lower wages than Americans (less tax $ paid)

3. Immigrants (legal & illegal extract 138 TRILLION over 10 years OUT OF OUR ECONOMY ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$.

Strike 1....Strike 2.....Strike 3

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The fallacy of immigrationists is that they claim that low wage immigrants "contribute" by working and paying taxes. The part they leave out is that this work is in REPLACEMENT OF American workers who would have higher wages, pay MORE tax, and don't work off the books.

To say illegals "contribute" is like saying I will contribute to the ASPCA with my contribution of $70, INSTEAD OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION of $100. Conclusion: LOSS of $30 for the ASPCA.

I can see Economics is not your strong suit. You seem hung up on those remittances, but ask yourself, what happens if all that money is kept here? The work for those dollars has already been done. No extra goods will be produced. Additional dollars chasing the same amount of goods, what happens?

Working off the books. Do you really think citizens don't work off the books given the opportunity? I know I have. I know my sister lived in New York City and worked off the books for seven years. It is called the shadow economy and it is estimated to be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS a year. Do you really want to make the claim that it is all immigrants?

Trillions Earned Under Table As More Work Off Radar

But now to your first two claims. It is an interesting thing, some states have a large immigrant population and some states hardly have any. That provides a great opportunity to study the impact of those immigrants on wages and productivity. Here is what they found,

First, immigrants do not crowd-out employment of (or hours worked by) natives; they add to total employment and reduce the share of highly educated workers, because of their larger share of low-skilled relative to native workers. Second, immigrants increase total factor productivity. These productivity gains may arise because of the more efficient allocation of skills to tasks, as immigrants are allocated to manual-intensive jobs, promoting competition and pushing natives to perform communication-intensive tasks more efficiently. Indeed, a measure of task-specialization of native workers induced by immigrants explains half to two thirds of the positive effect on productivity.

Third, Peri finds that inflows of immigrants decrease capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies. The decrease in capital intensity comes from an increase in total factor productivity; the capital-to-labor ratio remains unchanged because investment rises coincident with the inflow of immigrants. The reduction in the skill-intensity of production occurs as immigrants influence the choice of production techniques toward those that more efficiently use less educated workers and are less capital intensive.

Finally, Peri finds that for less educated natives, higher immigration has very little effect on wages, while for highly educated natives, the wage effect of higher immigration is positive. In summary, he finds that a one percent increase in employment in a US state, attributable only to immigration, is associated with a 0.4 to 0.5 percent increase in income per worker in that state.

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar10/w15507.html

Now, I don't have a lot of confidence that you understand the above quote. Later tonight I will be happy to explain what it means and provide examples. But for the moment I believe you can understand the last bit, a one percent increase in immigration results in an almost half a percent increase in wages PER WORKER. They don't decrease wages, they actually increase them, mostly due to increases in productivity.

And I can tell you something. Some of the jobs they do few, if any citizens, are going to do them at any wage. My son spent two summers doing field work. He and his friend were the only non-Hispanic people on the crews. And it was easy to get the "job". You just showed up at a field before the sun came up and worked your ass off till the sun went down. He got paid cash, and he and his friend made more money those summers than any of their fellow high school students. So why didn't more of them show up?

And he benefited more than just his income. It taught him about hard work, it taught him about respecting those immigrants, and most of all, well it taught him about discipline. That is why he is now 22, living in his own home in a upper class neighborhood and making more money than the average Harvard graduate. He will be the first to tell you that it is in no small part due to those summers in the fields.

What happens is $138 Billion/year stays INSIDE the US, and is spent in American stores (AKA the economy), instead of being wired out of the country, extracted out of the US economy, and spent in foreign country stores, thereby reinserted into THEIR economies.

So what is happening is essentially, international burglary, or in other words "imperialism", 21st century style ($ 24.3 Billion/yr to Mexico alone - the Vikings would be envious) And what is happening is US businesses being deprived of all those sales$$$, and US employees being deprived of all the benefits$$ that would go to them from all those sales,

On a smaller scale, it's like having your neighbor come over to your house, and remove your belongings (TV, stereo, computer, etc) every month for years, and reinsert it all into HIS house. Get it ?

So if you're OK with this scenario, I'll be that neighbor and remove your stuff, and take it to my house. Cool with you ? (so it would seem)

PS - as for working off the books, liberals are outrageous intelligence insulters. Don't talk stupid. We all know illegals work off the books at a far higher rate (1000 to 1 perhaps ?) than Americans, because Americans don't have the burden of being discovered by ICE. Give us a break!

 

[toobfreak]

Why Shouldnt DACA Illegal Aliens Be Deported

We have dealt with illegals for so long now that we have become numb to and comfortable with the idea of an entire population of criminals, many of which are hostile to our country (La Rasa, et al which sees the USA as theirs to be repatriated). These are criminals plain and simple, even if they are not all bad people doing overt harm. A speeder is breaking the law as well, even if they are a high-ranking judge. PLEASE do not try to blow that smoke that they are an asset to our country.

ALL illegal aliens are criminal trespassing invaders and must GO unless they have a visa or some such thing giving them legal right to be here. DACA, born in this country to an illegal? Sorry, boo hoo---- get in line, get a visa, apply for citizenship------ we don't need you if you cannot abide by the law.

 

[protectionist]

ijust spent 15 minute on a post that disappeared. I don't have my mouse with me. Cant function like this, will repost it later.Damn

 

[protectionist]

We have dealt with illegals for so long now that we have become numb to and comfortable with the idea of an entire population of criminals, many of which are hostile to our country (La Rasa, et al which sees the USA as theirs to be repatriated). These are criminals plain and simple, even if they are not all bad people doing overt harm. A speeder is breaking the law as well, even if they are a high-ranking judge. PLEASE do not try to blow that smoke that they are an asset to our country.

ALL illegal aliens are criminal trespassing invaders and must GO unless they have a visa or some such thing giving them legal right to be here. DACA, born in this country to an illegal? Sorry, boo hoo---- get in line, get a visa, apply for citizenship------ we don't need you if you cannot abide by the law.

Few things are more idiotic than liberals trying to claim illegal aliens are good for our economy (while they're stripping it of $138 Billion/year) and that doesn't even include tens of Billions$$ more we lose from their anchor baby racket and welfare losses we incur (us paying their [Mexico et al] poverty bills)

 

[TheParser]

DACA people should NOT be deported because:

1. It WOULD be cruel to force them to return to their impoverished and violent homelands. Many of them are de facto Americans, i.e., they have been here so long that they think like Americans.

2. This is 2018 and the United States of America. People will simply not tolerate rounding up 800,000 or more young people to be deported. There would be civil disobedience on the part of many DACA people and on the part of some authorities who are ordered to assist in their deportation.

The bottom line: They will NEVER be deported because it is NOT practical or politically feasible.

President Trump realizes that, and he will eventually agree to some face-saving solution for both Democrats and Republicans.

The DACA people and their supporters are just engaged in theater. They know that we know that they are not going anywhere.

 

[alang1216]

We have dealt with illegals for so long now that we have become numb to and comfortable with the idea of an entire population of criminals, many of which are hostile to our country (La Rasa, et al which sees the USA as theirs to be repatriated). These are criminals plain and simple, even if they are not all bad people doing overt harm. A speeder is breaking the law as well, even if they are a high-ranking judge. PLEASE do not try to blow that smoke that they are an asset to our country.

ALL illegal aliens are criminal trespassing invaders and must GO unless they have a visa or some such thing giving them legal right to be here. DACA, born in this country to an illegal? Sorry, boo hoo---- get in line, get a visa, apply for citizenship------ we don't need you if you cannot abide by the law.

Few things are more idiotic than liberals trying to claim illegal aliens are good for our economy (while they're stripping it of $138 Billion/year) and that doesn't even include tens of Billions$$ more we lose from their anchor baby racket and welfare losses we incur (us paying their [Mexico et al] poverty bills)

• There are fewer than 1 million DACA so they won't have any impact on our society.
• Minors can't be held legally responsible for the actions of their parents so they are NOT criminals.
• No DACA for any felons or dead beats. That leaves the vast majority of DACA as law-abiding and useful citizens. They have earned the right to stay if they have been in this country X number of years. Don't know what X should be, maybe 5 years?

 

[Tresha91203]

Dreamers contribute to our economy

There is your "evidence". Now, to your points. First remittances. Guess you haven't had an economics course. Those dollars flowing out of the US actually benefit you and the country. Perhaps more importantly, they can be damaging to the receiving country's economy. It is basic economics but feel free to do your own research. There are numerous white papers documenting both the effect of those remittances on the sending and receiving country's economy. But here in the United States it has been shown that those foreign remittances have done more to keep inflation under control than the suppression of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. Think about it, it is common sense. If those dollars remain here it is more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and the definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. On the flip side, well in the receiving country there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Check out Mexico, they had a sixteen year high inflation rate in December of 2017, 6.77%.

Mexico Inflation Rate | 1974-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

But now, to your study from the Center for Immigration Studies. That is just it, studies from the CIS are consistently debunked by academics, think tanks, and immigration research organizations. They are known for extremist nativist views and are suspected of being little more than an offshoot of white supremacist groups like the KKK. I would advise you not to produce such bullshit in a serious debate. For instance,

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.

I suppose you believe those two statements support your position. Ironically, they do not. The first statements informs you that the average immigrant is actually older than the average native. So when remove those "older" people from the census numbers the average age increases by four months. WTF. And a 39 year old immigrant that arrived in 1980 was 59 in 2000, and he was REMOVED from the numbers. It is not the immigrants that are keeping the average age down, it is their children, as shown here,

This growth has been driven entirely by the increasing numbers of babies born to immigrant women. In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11% during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014

Births Outside of Marriage Decline for Immigrant Women

Did you get that? US birth increases was ENTIRELY driven by immigrants. The impact can be seen here,

Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing

Your link source is simply BUNK. Of course DACAs don't contribute to our economy. We get LESS tax $$ from them same as any other illegal aliens becasue, as I said (some people have to be told twice) >>

1. Many illegals work off the books (zero tax $ paid)

2. Illegals work for lower wages than Americans (less tax $ paid)

3. Immigrants (legal & illegal extract 138 TRILLION over 10 years OUT OF OUR ECONOMY ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$.

Strike 1....Strike 2.....Strike 3

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The fallacy of immigrationists is that they claim that low wage immigrants "contribute" by working and paying taxes. The part they leave out is that this work is in REPLACEMENT OF American workers who would have higher wages, pay MORE tax, and don't work off the books.

To say illegals "contribute" is like saying I will contribute to the ASPCA with my contribution of $70, INSTEAD OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION of $100. Conclusion: LOSS of $30 for the ASPCA.

I can see Economics is not your strong suit. You seem hung up on those remittances, but ask yourself, what happens if all that money is kept here? The work for those dollars has already been done. No extra goods will be produced. Additional dollars chasing the same amount of goods, what happens?

Working off the books. Do you really think citizens don't work off the books given the opportunity? I know I have. I know my sister lived in New York City and worked off the books for seven years. It is called the shadow economy and it is estimated to be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS a year. Do you really want to make the claim that it is all immigrants?

Trillions Earned Under Table As More Work Off Radar

But now to your first two claims. It is an interesting thing, some states have a large immigrant population and some states hardly have any. That provides a great opportunity to study the impact of those immigrants on wages and productivity. Here is what they found,

First, immigrants do not crowd-out employment of (or hours worked by) natives; they add to total employment and reduce the share of highly educated workers, because of their larger share of low-skilled relative to native workers. Second, immigrants increase total factor productivity. These productivity gains may arise because of the more efficient allocation of skills to tasks, as immigrants are allocated to manual-intensive jobs, promoting competition and pushing natives to perform communication-intensive tasks more efficiently. Indeed, a measure of task-specialization of native workers induced by immigrants explains half to two thirds of the positive effect on productivity.

Third, Peri finds that inflows of immigrants decrease capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies. The decrease in capital intensity comes from an increase in total factor productivity; the capital-to-labor ratio remains unchanged because investment rises coincident with the inflow of immigrants. The reduction in the skill-intensity of production occurs as immigrants influence the choice of production techniques toward those that more efficiently use less educated workers and are less capital intensive.

Finally, Peri finds that for less educated natives, higher immigration has very little effect on wages, while for highly educated natives, the wage effect of higher immigration is positive. In summary, he finds that a one percent increase in employment in a US state, attributable only to immigration, is associated with a 0.4 to 0.5 percent increase in income per worker in that state.

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar10/w15507.html

Now, I don't have a lot of confidence that you understand the above quote. Later tonight I will be happy to explain what it means and provide examples. But for the moment I believe you can understand the last bit, a one percent increase in immigration results in an almost half a percent increase in wages PER WORKER. They don't decrease wages, they actually increase them, mostly due to increases in productivity.

And I can tell you something. Some of the jobs they do few, if any citizens, are going to do them at any wage. My son spent two summers doing field work. He and his friend were the only non-Hispanic people on the crews. And it was easy to get the "job". You just showed up at a field before the sun came up and worked your ass off till the sun went down. He got paid cash, and he and his friend made more money those summers than any of their fellow high school students. So why didn't more of them show up?

And he benefited more than just his income. It taught him about hard work, it taught him about respecting those immigrants, and most of all, well it taught him about discipline. That is why he is now 22, living in his own home in a upper class neighborhood and making more money than the average Harvard graduate. He will be the first to tell you that it is in no small part due to those summers in the fields.

That money will be used to pay the TRUE cost of American workers making a living wage. Prices will go up before inflation.

Do you really believe that the US needs an exploited underclass to survive?

 

[toobfreak]

There are fewer than 1 million DACA so they won't have any impact on our society.

ONE MILLION people no impact? How many people did it take to bring down the World Trade Center and kill 2000 people ----- Seven?

• Minors can't be held legally responsible for the actions of their parents so they are NOT criminals.

Whether they walked in on their own, was thrown over the fence or was illegally born here, they are still illegal aliens.

• They have earned the right to stay if they have been in this country X number of years.

Try sneaking into N. Korea, Russia or a lot of other countries illegally and hiding out for a few years then exclaiming: "I've earned the right to be here!"

 

[alang1216]

There are fewer than 1 million DACA so they won't have any impact on our society.

ONE MILLION people no impact? How many people did it take to bring down the World Trade Center and kill 2000 people ----- Seven?.

Try sneaking into N. Korea, Russia or a lot of other countries illegally and hiding out for a few years then exclaiming: "I've earned the right to be here!"[/QUOTE]
One million in a country of 300 million. I haven't seen anything that says the DACA kids are any worse than any other kids in the US.

There are fewer than 1 million DACA so they won't have any impact on our society.

• They have earned the right to stay if they have been in this country X number of years.

Try sneaking into N. Korea, Russia or a lot of other countries illegally and hiding out for a few years then exclaiming: "I've earned the right to be here!"

Is that your measure of a great nation? It certainly isn't mine.

 

[toobfreak]

One million in a country of 300 million.

Right. Already over 320 million and RAPIDLY CLIMBING at an exponential rate in a county that was already crowded enough and full when it only had 200 million in it. Why don't you invite some more in, Jackass! Where is all that concern for environment and resources you have any other time?

 

[alang1216]

One million in a country of 300 million.

Right. Already over 320 million and RAPIDLY CLIMBING at an exponential rate in a county that was already crowded enough and full when it only had 200 million in it. Why don't you invite some more in, Jackass! Where is all that concern for environment and resources you have any other time?

Wrong and wrong. The population of theUnited States would be shrinking if not for immigration. I'm a city type so as far as I'm concerned there's plenty of room here.

There are fewer than 1 million DACA so they won't have any impact on our society.

ONE MILLION people no impact? How many people did it take to bring down the World Trade Center and kill 2000 people ----- Seven?.

Try sneaking into N. Korea, Russia or a lot of other countries illegally and hiding out for a few years then exclaiming: "I've earned the right to be here!"

There are fewer than 1 million DACA so they won't have any impact on our society.

• They have earned the right to stay if they have been in this country X number of years.

Try sneaking into N. Korea, Russia or a lot of other countries illegally and hiding out for a few years then exclaiming: "I've earned the right to be here!"

Is that your measure of a great nation? It certainly isn't mine.[/QUOTE]


Sent from my SM-T820 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Winston]

Dreamers contribute to our economy

There is your "evidence". Now, to your points. First remittances. Guess you haven't had an economics course. Those dollars flowing out of the US actually benefit you and the country. Perhaps more importantly, they can be damaging to the receiving country's economy. It is basic economics but feel free to do your own research. There are numerous white papers documenting both the effect of those remittances on the sending and receiving country's economy. But here in the United States it has been shown that those foreign remittances have done more to keep inflation under control than the suppression of the interest rate by the Federal Reserve. Think about it, it is common sense. If those dollars remain here it is more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and the definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. On the flip side, well in the receiving country there are now more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Check out Mexico, they had a sixteen year high inflation rate in December of 2017, 6.77%.

Mexico Inflation Rate | 1974-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

But now, to your study from the Center for Immigration Studies. That is just it, studies from the CIS are consistently debunked by academics, think tanks, and immigration research organizations. They are known for extremist nativist views and are suspected of being little more than an offshoot of white supremacist groups like the KKK. I would advise you not to produce such bullshit in a serious debate. For instance,

• In 2000 the average age of an immigrant was 39, which is actually about four years older than the average age of a native-born American.
• Even focusing on only recent immigration reveals little impact on aging. Excluding all 22 million immigrants who arrived after 1980 from the 2000 Census increases the average age in the United States by only about four months.

I suppose you believe those two statements support your position. Ironically, they do not. The first statements informs you that the average immigrant is actually older than the average native. So when remove those "older" people from the census numbers the average age increases by four months. WTF. And a 39 year old immigrant that arrived in 1980 was 59 in 2000, and he was REMOVED from the numbers. It is not the immigrants that are keeping the average age down, it is their children, as shown here,

This growth has been driven entirely by the increasing numbers of babies born to immigrant women. In 2014, immigrant women accounted for about 901,000 U.S. births, which marked a threefold increase from 1970 when immigrant women accounted for about 274,000 births. Meanwhile, the annual number of births to U.S.-born women dropped by 11% during that same time period, from 3.46 million in 1970 to 3.10 million in 2014

Births Outside of Marriage Decline for Immigrant Women

Did you get that? US birth increases was ENTIRELY driven by immigrants. The impact can be seen here,

Immigrants Are Keeping America Young — And The Economy Growing

Your link source is simply BUNK. Of course DACAs don't contribute to our economy. We get LESS tax $$ from them same as any other illegal aliens becasue, as I said (some people have to be told twice) >>

1. Many illegals work off the books (zero tax $ paid)

2. Illegals work for lower wages than Americans (less tax $ paid)

3. Immigrants (legal & illegal extract 138 TRILLION over 10 years OUT OF OUR ECONOMY ie, $133 Billion X 10) in remittances$$$.

Strike 1....Strike 2.....Strike 3

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2016

The fallacy of immigrationists is that they claim that low wage immigrants "contribute" by working and paying taxes. The part they leave out is that this work is in REPLACEMENT OF American workers who would have higher wages, pay MORE tax, and don't work off the books.

To say illegals "contribute" is like saying I will contribute to the ASPCA with my contribution of $70, INSTEAD OF YOUR CONTRIBUTION of $100. Conclusion: LOSS of $30 for the ASPCA.

I can see Economics is not your strong suit. You seem hung up on those remittances, but ask yourself, what happens if all that money is kept here? The work for those dollars has already been done. No extra goods will be produced. Additional dollars chasing the same amount of goods, what happens?

Working off the books. Do you really think citizens don't work off the books given the opportunity? I know I have. I know my sister lived in New York City and worked off the books for seven years. It is called the shadow economy and it is estimated to be TWO TRILLION DOLLARS a year. Do you really want to make the claim that it is all immigrants?

Trillions Earned Under Table As More Work Off Radar

But now to your first two claims. It is an interesting thing, some states have a large immigrant population and some states hardly have any. That provides a great opportunity to study the impact of those immigrants on wages and productivity. Here is what they found,

First, immigrants do not crowd-out employment of (or hours worked by) natives; they add to total employment and reduce the share of highly educated workers, because of their larger share of low-skilled relative to native workers. Second, immigrants increase total factor productivity. These productivity gains may arise because of the more efficient allocation of skills to tasks, as immigrants are allocated to manual-intensive jobs, promoting competition and pushing natives to perform communication-intensive tasks more efficiently. Indeed, a measure of task-specialization of native workers induced by immigrants explains half to two thirds of the positive effect on productivity.

Third, Peri finds that inflows of immigrants decrease capital intensity and the skill-bias of production technologies. The decrease in capital intensity comes from an increase in total factor productivity; the capital-to-labor ratio remains unchanged because investment rises coincident with the inflow of immigrants. The reduction in the skill-intensity of production occurs as immigrants influence the choice of production techniques toward those that more efficiently use less educated workers and are less capital intensive.

Finally, Peri finds that for less educated natives, higher immigration has very little effect on wages, while for highly educated natives, the wage effect of higher immigration is positive. In summary, he finds that a one percent increase in employment in a US state, attributable only to immigration, is associated with a 0.4 to 0.5 percent increase in income per worker in that state.

http://www.nber.org/digest/mar10/w15507.html

Now, I don't have a lot of confidence that you understand the above quote. Later tonight I will be happy to explain what it means and provide examples. But for the moment I believe you can understand the last bit, a one percent increase in immigration results in an almost half a percent increase in wages PER WORKER. They don't decrease wages, they actually increase them, mostly due to increases in productivity.

And I can tell you something. Some of the jobs they do few, if any citizens, are going to do them at any wage. My son spent two summers doing field work. He and his friend were the only non-Hispanic people on the crews. And it was easy to get the "job". You just showed up at a field before the sun came up and worked your ass off till the sun went down. He got paid cash, and he and his friend made more money those summers than any of their fellow high school students. So why didn't more of them show up?

And he benefited more than just his income. It taught him about hard work, it taught him about respecting those immigrants, and most of all, well it taught him about discipline. That is why he is now 22, living in his own home in a upper class neighborhood and making more money than the average Harvard graduate. He will be the first to tell you that it is in no small part due to those summers in the fields.

What happens is $138 Billion/year stays INSIDE the US, and is spent in American stores (AKA the economy), instead of being wired out of the country, extracted out of the US economy, and spent in foreign country stores, thereby reinserted into THEIR economies.

So what is happening is essentially, international burglary, or in other words "imperialism", 21st century style ($ 24.3 Billion/yr to Mexico alone - the Vikings would be envious) And what is happening is US businesses being deprived of all those sales$$$, and US employees being deprived of all the benefits$$ that would go to them from all those sales,

On a smaller scale, it's like having your neighbor come over to your house, and remove your belongings (TV, stereo, computer, etc) every month for years, and reinsert it all into HIS house. Get it ?

So if you're OK with this scenario, I'll be that neighbor and remove your stuff, and take it to my house. Cool with you ? (so it would seem)

PS - as for working off the books, liberals are outrageous intelligence insulters. Don't talk stupid. We all know illegals work off the books at a far higher rate (1000 to 1 perhaps ?) than Americans, because Americans don't have the burden of being discovered by ICE. Give us a break!

Yes, yes--Hell Yeah, you have it explained perfectly The money goes out of our "economy" and in to theirs. But it's just the money. It has another component. The WORK. The work stays here. It has already been done. We get the work, they get the "money".

You think that is a bad thing? Seriously? OK, then look at it in another way. We get the PRODUCTIVITY, they get the increase in money supply.

I mean you understand that the Federal Reserve just cranking out the dollars is not a good thing, right? More dollars, same amount of goods, or works, or resources. Whatever, it don't make a shit. Well then why can't you understand the taking out dollars, "poof", disappearing them in to some far off foreign land, while at the same time creating more "work", or goods, or resources here is an awesome thing.

Damn, like Japan printing a boatload of counterfeit money and dropping it in the US economy. Damn near the same thing as the money immigrants "bomb" the countries where their families are. It was considered an act of war back then, now you act like those receiving countries are winning the lottery.

Now, here is how that whole immigrant workers increasing pay works. Let's say you are a bricklayer. Your employer hires an immigrant worker to haul the bricks and make the cement. You used to haul the bricks and make the cement. He makes less than you. Now you have more time to lay bricks. Your employer get's paid by the brick. Now he can pay you more, pay the immigrant, and still profit from the increased, wait for it, PRODUCTIVITY. You did get that, "profit more", right?

No matter how you try to spin it. No matter how much your bias draws you to the conclusion that immigrants cost the US, you are wrong. It is hard to find an economist that would support your position. And history doesn't support it either. When immigration increases productivity, and wages, increase along with that increase. It has been proven time and time again. And perhaps more importantly, when we restrict immigration too aggressively, our economy tanks as productivity declines and creativity and ingenuity drop.

 

[MaryL]

The illegal aliens commonly referred to as DACA (Deferred Action Childhood Arrivals) have become a major impasse between Democrats and Republicans.

DACA is an executive order that was illegally enacted byBarrack Obama, and that alone couldshould define deportation as the proper action. In addition to Obama's recklessness (to boost Democrat VOTES), the DACA people did come here illegally, and like all other illegal aliens, fit the description of th 17 "Harms of Immigration", just as much as those who came here as adults. In fact, since thy will live longer, they are MORE of a harm than the adult arrivees.

So to PROTECT the American people (always the # 1 responsibility of government) from these many long-lasting harms, shouldn't ALL illegl aliens be deported ? Should we be puting empathy for the DACAs oer protection of the American people, in contradiction to the protecive immigration laws that our ancestors provided fr us ? I think not.

Sure the deportations could result in family separations, but that is a problem that is caused by those who came here illegally, not th American people. Also, recent studies are now showing that there are very few fmiy separations from deportations, wih families sticking together and all going back to the old country, together as a unit.
Some major points have been overlooked in th DACA discussions. One is that the DACAs ar overwhelmingly Hispanic, and Hispanics tend to vote Democrat (which is why Democrats fight so fiercly for them). So keeping them in th US has adverse political effects on Republicans.

The other points are firmly embedded in the 17 points of Harms of Immigration * which if polls are correct, show how ignorant Americans are about immigration - to support something so harmful to them.

* Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases.

Perhaps we are suffering from compassion overload. Illegal aliens are pushing this issue to the point of being excessive to the point I don't care anymore.