ADVERTISEMENT

Jeff Sessions is downright evil

No it hasn’t. I am a proponent of legal immigration. The reason I keep asking the question for which no one will answer is to highlight a basic problem. That is regardless of how many we allow there will be 100 times more that want to come here. So what do we do? I am waiting for someone to discuss this rather than overreacting to every sensationalized news report.
How much? I don't have a number but I would say that we should have more legal immigration than was allowed under Obama...certainly not less.
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/01/26/world/what-limiting-legal-immigration-would-do-our-economy
http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...s-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
Here is an economic analysis of the proposed RAISE act that will cut immigration. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...-raise-act-effect-on-economic-growth-and-jobs
  • The RAISE Act, a bill recently introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and endorsed by President Trump on Aug 2, 2017, would reduce legal immigration while increasing the portion of new legal immigrants that are highly skilled.
  • By 2027, our analysis projects that RAISE will reduce GDP by 0.7 percent relative to current law, and reduce jobs by 1.3 million. By 2040, GDP will be about 2 percent lower and jobs will fall by 4.6 million.
  • Despite changes to population size, jobs and GDP, there is very little change to per capita GDP, increasing slightly in the short run and then eventually falling.
{on edit} here is an actual proposal with a number https://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/07/us_benefits_by_doubling_immigr_1.html
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The United States, with an aging population, could benefit by substantially increasing the number of immigrants, especially those who are college educated, according to a new online analysis tool by the University of Pennsylvania.

If net legal immigration to the U.S. gradually doubled from the current 800,000 per year to 1.6 million over the next few decades, it would not only increase the size of the population, but also employment and the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu.​
 
How much? I don't have a number but I would say that we should have more legal immigration than was allowed under Obama...certainly not less.
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/01/26/world/what-limiting-legal-immigration-would-do-our-economy
http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...s-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
Here is an economic analysis of the proposed RAISE act that will cut immigration. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...-raise-act-effect-on-economic-growth-and-jobs
  • The RAISE Act, a bill recently introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and endorsed by President Trump on Aug 2, 2017, would reduce legal immigration while increasing the portion of new legal immigrants that are highly skilled.
  • By 2027, our analysis projects that RAISE will reduce GDP by 0.7 percent relative to current law, and reduce jobs by 1.3 million. By 2040, GDP will be about 2 percent lower and jobs will fall by 4.6 million.
  • Despite changes to population size, jobs and GDP, there is very little change to per capita GDP, increasing slightly in the short run and then eventually falling.
{on edit} here is an actual proposal with a number https://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/07/us_benefits_by_doubling_immigr_1.html
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The United States, with an aging population, could benefit by substantially increasing the number of immigrants, especially those who are college educated, according to a new online analysis tool by the University of Pennsylvania.

If net legal immigration to the U.S. gradually doubled from the current 800,000 per year to 1.6 million over the next few decades, it would not only increase the size of the population, but also employment and the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu.​

What's the population of Norway? They could afford to lose a million or two, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
How much? I don't have a number but I would say that we should have more legal immigration than was allowed under Obama...certainly not less.
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/01/26/world/what-limiting-legal-immigration-would-do-our-economy
http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...s-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
Here is an economic analysis of the proposed RAISE act that will cut immigration. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...-raise-act-effect-on-economic-growth-and-jobs
  • The RAISE Act, a bill recently introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and endorsed by President Trump on Aug 2, 2017, would reduce legal immigration while increasing the portion of new legal immigrants that are highly skilled.
  • By 2027, our analysis projects that RAISE will reduce GDP by 0.7 percent relative to current law, and reduce jobs by 1.3 million. By 2040, GDP will be about 2 percent lower and jobs will fall by 4.6 million.
  • Despite changes to population size, jobs and GDP, there is very little change to per capita GDP, increasing slightly in the short run and then eventually falling.
{on edit} here is an actual proposal with a number https://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/07/us_benefits_by_doubling_immigr_1.html
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The United States, with an aging population, could benefit by substantially increasing the number of immigrants, especially those who are college educated, according to a new online analysis tool by the University of Pennsylvania.

If net legal immigration to the U.S. gradually doubled from the current 800,000 per year to 1.6 million over the next few decades, it would not only increase the size of the population, but also employment and the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu.​

"especially those who are college educated"

In other words, those who can come here and obtain a job and take care of themselves without having to rely on EITC and other benefits. People that fall into that category are by and large not walking across the Southern border with their kids. You will not have much argument about legally bringing in college educated foreigners to become citizens. The problem is uneducated individuals whose skills are a dime a dozen coming in because those skills are not worth what many would consider a sustainable wage.
 
"especially those who are college educated"

In other words, those who can come here and obtain a job and take care of themselves without having to rely on EITC and other benefits. People that fall into that category are by and large not walking across the Southern border with their kids. You will not have much argument about legally bringing in college educated foreigners to become citizens. The problem is uneducated individuals whose skills are a dime a dozen coming in because those skills are not worth what many would consider a sustainable wage.
GOP voters aren't evaluating immigration in the economic terms used by the study above. If they cared about the economic implications of immigration then they would also favor immigration of people with less education as well. This is what the Wharton study says. But the GOP is concerned about demographics rather than economics. If we take as the goal preserving a white majority then it makes sense to dramatically decrease immigration in exactly the way being proposed.
 
GOP voters aren't evaluating immigration in the economic terms used by the study above. If they cared about the economic implications of immigration then they would also favor immigration of people with less education as well. This is what the Wharton study says. But the GOP is concerned about demographics rather than economics. If we take as the goal preserving a white majority then it makes sense to dramatically decrease immigration in exactly the way being proposed.

Here’s a well known republican leader
 
No it hasn’t. I am a proponent of legal immigration. The reason I keep asking the question for which no one will answer is to highlight a basic problem. That is regardless of how many we allow there will be 100 times more that want to come here. So what do we do? I am waiting for someone to discuss this rather than overreacting to every sensationalized news report.

My number is 1.2 million, although I'd prefer a number set by people who get paid to analyze and evaluate this stuff for a living.

Now, why is it sensationalization to discuss whether children being taken from their families as a means to discourage illegal immigration is good policy? Why is it sensationalization to discuss whether sexual assault should be allowable as the basis for an amnesty petition? Isn't that discussing policy?

I can get on board for a discussion on the responsible limits that are necessary in immigration policy. I can't get on board for a discussion of those limits as a way to avoid discussing the way we conduct immigration policy. You seem much more interested in the latter and that's disappointing.
 
.... and we will be forgiven if wrong..... Grace.
So, do you think a person can intentionally be a horse's butt his entire life, do multiple wrongs against others, never be charitable, and wait until he/she is on his/her death bed and say, "OK, forgive me. See you in heaven." ??

I think there may be a doctrine that governs this (even for conservative Republicans).
 
No it hasn’t. I am a proponent of legal immigration. The reason I keep asking the question for which no one will answer is to highlight a basic problem. That is regardless of how many we allow there will be 100 times more that want to come here. So what do we do? I am waiting for someone to discuss this rather than overreacting to every sensationalized news report.
That, in itself, may be a fair question, but I think a lot of people are reacting to the Trumpist deportation of people who are already here and have established a track record of some kind, rather than the permissive immigration of newcomers and strangers that we may know nothing about. We should make sure to ask the right question.
 
How much? I don't have a number but I would say that we should have more legal immigration than was allowed under Obama...certainly not less.
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/01/26/world/what-limiting-legal-immigration-would-do-our-economy
http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...s-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy
Here is an economic analysis of the proposed RAISE act that will cut immigration. http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed...-raise-act-effect-on-economic-growth-and-jobs
  • The RAISE Act, a bill recently introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue and endorsed by President Trump on Aug 2, 2017, would reduce legal immigration while increasing the portion of new legal immigrants that are highly skilled.
  • By 2027, our analysis projects that RAISE will reduce GDP by 0.7 percent relative to current law, and reduce jobs by 1.3 million. By 2040, GDP will be about 2 percent lower and jobs will fall by 4.6 million.
  • Despite changes to population size, jobs and GDP, there is very little change to per capita GDP, increasing slightly in the short run and then eventually falling.
{on edit} here is an actual proposal with a number https://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/index.ssf/2016/07/us_benefits_by_doubling_immigr_1.html
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The United States, with an aging population, could benefit by substantially increasing the number of immigrants, especially those who are college educated, according to a new online analysis tool by the University of Pennsylvania.

If net legal immigration to the U.S. gradually doubled from the current 800,000 per year to 1.6 million over the next few decades, it would not only increase the size of the population, but also employment and the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu.​


Ok, your number appears to be higher. The number above is 1.6 million.

That, in itself, may be a fair question, but I think a lot of people are reacting to the Trumpist deportation of people who are already here and have established a track record of some kind, rather than the permissive immigration of newcomers and strangers that we may know nothing about. We should make sure to ask the right question.

We can discuss any question you want. My question stands IMO because the root of all of this madness is related to our overall immigration policy.

1. For legal immigration there are lots of good, talented people who want to come here. A merit based system seems to me to be the best. Chain immigration results in family members coming in but may result in someone with skills that our economy needs left out.

2. For Asylum candidates I think, as stated before, this is a huge bag of worms if we try to accommodate people from countries that human rights values are totally different than ours. I have always thought of asylum relating to politically oppressed people.

3. Illegal Immigration has been discussed ad nauseam but I still think given the number of people clamoring to get into our country and the threat of terrorists we have to have a secure border. The days are long gone when low skilled people, regardless of their work ethic, etc. can come into our country and make their own work in an agricultural based society as we had 150 yrs ago. We must have control. Can anyone imagine how many people would come into Assembly Hall if there were no gates and crowd control?
 
There are the lies that Trump tells, and there is the aggressive stupidity of his supporters, but there is also the reality that these people are sociopaths:

Besides increasing the odds of a broader immigration bill, senior Trump strategists believe that the child separation policy will deter the flow of migrant families across the border. Nearly 2,000 immigrant children were separated from parents in less than two weeks in late April, according to the Justice Department. The figure is the only one released by the goverment.

“The president has told folks that in lieu of the laws being fixed, he wants to use the enforcement mechanisms that we have,” a White House official said. “The thinking in the building is to force people to the table.”
They are terrorizing helpless children to "force people to the table." Maybe they should just start shooting a brown child every hour until Democrats submit. I bet that would "force people to the table."
 
Apologies for my shortcomings, but next time could you post it in English?
Marx is short for Karl Marx. Karl Marx's writings are used in History, Economics and Sociology. The "Reserve Army of Labor" is one Karl Marx's theories on advanced stage capitalism...
 
Marx is short for Karl Marx. Karl Marx's writings are used in History, Economics and Sociology. The "Reserve Army of Labor" is one Karl Marx's theories on advanced stage capitalism...

Uh-huh. Totes. That doesn't really turn your post into coherent English though.
 
So, do you think a person can intentionally be a horse's butt his entire life, do multiple wrongs against others, never be charitable, and wait until he/she is on his/her death bed and say, "OK, forgive me. See you in heaven." ??

I think there may be a doctrine that governs this (even for conservative Republicans).
Yes, it is a great loophole in the most ridiculous cult ever seen.
 
ADVERTISEMENT