What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[HappyJoy]

To be honest your reply was a waste of my time and I shouldn't have bothered responding to it.

You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist? Yes, you spent a lot of time on that. It showed

You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

No, it's not a quote dingbat.

 

[HappyJoy]

You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

 

[Flopper]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

/----/ Except they are looking for welfare.
Immigration and Welfare | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people who wind up on public assistance: immigrants. Many immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. The immigrants we admit are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. The share of immigrants below the poverty line (17.8 percent) is much higher than the share of natives that are poor (12.6 percent).1

As a result of their high rate of poverty, immigrant households are more likely to participate in practically every one of the major means-tested programs. In 2007, immigrant use of welfare programs (32.7 percent) was 69 percent higher than non-immigrants’ use (19.4 percent).2

Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.3 Those programs include Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Child Care and Development Fund, reduced meal programs in school and public housing.

The statistics are a bit misleading. If you look at the number of immigrant families below the poverty level, there is little difference. However these statistics are per capita and since immigrants families are much larger, per capita, statistics will how a much higher percentage in poverty.

As we move from 1st generation immigrants to second generation, the per capita difference fades due the fact 2nd generation families are much smaller and make more money.

 

[kaz]

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

We don't hate illegals.
We would love them to stay where they belong.

If I was to invade Germany, which I love very much, I would expect to be arrested and deported.

I don't have much feeling about the individuals one way or another. I absolutely hate their disrespect for our laws and our country. If they had turned up through the proper legal channels, it would then be a question of whether or not they were useful, productive residents.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

We have 350000000 people here .
And we are worried about 10000000 young people who will help our SS and work harder than our local rubes?

Yes. Because they aren't all young, they aren't all helpful, and they aren't all hard-working.

Oh, and we already have 350,000,000 people here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Yes, this is terrible. I think I know of a solution though: If you have children, STF away from our borders.

Then it clearly is not so terrible to you. It's a human cost you find WORTH IT.

There's positive human cost.
They will raise the IQ of us all

They might raise YOURS, because the more you talk, the more convinced I become that a really good bowel movement would raise your IQ.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist? Yes, you spent a lot of time on that. It showed

You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

I'm aware. It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny. I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.

Good. I only wish it was true.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.

We could certainly take more people. 300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here. Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation. You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.

Why should we take a single additional person? How do we benefit?

America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy. We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.

Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.

What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows. They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035

You're correct. We DON'T need more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows. But since living in the shadows is what people who break the law DO, that translates out into "we don't need more illegal immigrants". And no, the solution to crime is NEVER to simply stop viewing it as bad.

 

[bripat9643]

You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

I'm aware. It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny. I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.

Yeah, we all know that's what he meant, even HappyJoy knows that. Most people give syntax errors a pass, unless they are vindictive douchebag snowflakes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You mean your reply where I said I'm not an anarchist and you came back with that oh, I'm an anarchist? Yes, you spent a lot of time on that. It showed

You can't even recap a 2 sentence conversation correctly. Ok, you got me, wasted my time again. Koz, stay on topic, it's your only hope.

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

No, it's not a quote dingbat.

Oh? You've never claimed to care about illegals? Well, then you're more honest than I have previously given you credit for.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

I'm aware. It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny. I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.

Yeah, we all know that's what he meant, even HappyJoy knows that. Most people give syntax errors a pass, unless they are vindictive douchebag snowflakes.

Yeah, and Kaz wasn't pointing out a REAL syntax error. He was pointing out that any claim that Happy cares about illegals is missing the word "doesn't".

 

[HappyJoy]

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

 

[kaz]

/——/ If there was a chance they were voting GOP, you Libtards would be volunteering to build the wall brick by brick. Besides law breakers looking for welfare fall into the democRAT camp, not ours.

Except these people aren't looking for welfare. They are willing to do the jobs the welfare collecting white trash in the trailer parks aren't willing to do.

You drool a lot, dont you?

You care (sic) about other's poor, not our own

Why are you adding a sic to your own post? I guess you don't know how that works either.

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

I'm aware. It was intended to be a snarky backhand, rather than a serious usage, so I can accept it and find it funny. I'm reading it as a correction of the typographical error of Happy saying he cares when he should have said he DOESN'T care.

Yeah, we all know that's what he meant, even HappyJoy knows that. Most people give syntax errors a pass, unless they are vindictive douchebag snowflakes.

Syntax errors had nothing to do with it. Sheesh.

Happy joy. bripat.


Sic means "not my mistake." Syntax errors are only one use of it

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because it's a quote of something you said which is incorrect. You know, unless you have NOT, in fact, been trying to tell us that you care about illegals.

You're not real swift on the uptake, are ya?

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting. No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake. He made a joke. You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish. We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win". (See, there are the quotes you wanted. You're welcome.)

 

[bripat9643]

[sic] is for noting grammar or syntax errors. Quotes are what he should have used.

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting. No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake. He made a joke. You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish. We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win". (See, there are the quotes you wanted. You're welcome.)

I'm not pissy. I didn't want to have this big discussion about it. I just made a passing comment. No offense intended.

Now would everyone get off my case?

 

[kaz]

Sic translates as "not my mistake." Exactly what I meant. Cecile got it. I did NOT mean quotes

Sorry, you failed English, please deport yourself.

Even after reading it, Cecile explaining it and me explaining it you dont get it, do you? Classic. Its special ed for you all over again...

You didn't even directly quote me. Yes, everyone knows what you meant, you're just to dumb to understand that you made a mistake. Can we move on now?

There's a difference between quoting, and direct quoting. No one ever claimed it was a direct quote.

And he didn't make a mistake. He made a joke. You're just pissy because he made it at your expense, and you think having a stick-up-your-ass grammatical argument will somehow make you look less foolish. We could have moved on several post ago, if you hadn't been wasting our time trying to "win". (See, there are the quotes you wanted. You're welcome.)

I'm not pissy. I didn't want to have this big discussion about it. I just made a passing comment. No offense intended.

Now would everyone get off my case?

I only got on your case because you slammed me for criticizing a syntax error ... which I DID NOT DO

 

[danielpalos]

The lawyers who work along the border are saying that’s not what’s happening. Asylum seekers are being slowed down and blocked at the borders. Asylum seekers have to have both feet on US soil to claim asylum. Trump won’t let them do that. That’s why they’re crossing any way they can. People are waiting days and then being turned away from crossing while being told the US is full and they can’t come in.

Good. I only wish it was true.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I was talking with a friend today who believes the Unites States could easily take in up to 300 million additional people and there is no reason to stop anyone at the border. Her reasoning is that the flow of immigration would end long before we reached that number and everyone would be happier for it.

We could certainly take more people. 300 million? Don't think so. We take about a million legal immigrants a year but 600,000 are changes of status; that is they are already here. Biggest problem in taking too many immigrants is assimilation. You want new immigrants to mix into the population, not form clusters.

Why should we take a single additional person? How do we benefit?

America needs immigrants to grow and prosper, especially highly-skilled immigrants who fuel innovation and spur higher productivity gains across the economy. We simple don't produce enough to meet demand.

Annual growth of the labor force has slowed from 1.2 percent in the 1990s to 0.5 percent in the current decade. And with the number of native-born Americans of working age on a path to decline by 8 million between now and 2035, we need immigrant workers and their children to maintain our economic growth into the future.

What we don't need is more illegal immigrants that live in the shadows. They can not assimilate and contribute to economy in the way legal immigrants can.
Immigration projected to drive growth in U.S. working-age population through at least 2035

we need to end our alleged wars on drugs and terror. those policies create refugees.

 

[Mike473]

Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?

I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.

The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?

I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.

 

[danielpalos]

Under the current system, what % of illegal immigrants could gain entrance to the United States through the process in place now? How many have high end work skills?

I am assuming that a high % have only a small chance of making it in legally. In other words, waiting in line is not an option if your turn will never come. They have nothing to lose by trying to get in any way they can. I doubt they are worried about larger political arguments, only improving their immediate family situation. Survival comes first.

The big question is how to fix the process. How many people per year can the United States support? What steps can the US take to influence improvements in Central and South America to raise the standard of living, if anything?

I am also assuming that the United States is acting as a pressure release for many of those countries. If the US cut off all immigration, I am betting that over time, the millions of people who would have otherwise decided to run, would find the only option was to fight. That kind of atmosphere can lead to some bad outcomes.

Tourism. Most people fleeing persecution may be able to "wait it out", and perhaps coincide with a good exchange rate, before going back. We could be making money, not losing money.

Being Good Capitalists, can be so difficult, for the right wing.