Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[Chicog]

What do you call it?

Temporary relief.

Can be reversed at the stroke of the next presidential pen, or by Congress actually passing an immigration bill.

Essentially they're being given work permits.

Why would you call that an "amnesty"?

Oh, I forgot.

Fox told you to.

Temporary relief from what? Loosen those curlers and think. I don't even get Fox News.

Then this is quite a feat of observation on your part:

"God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information"

And it's temporary relief from being deported.

Why, do you think all those Mexicans going home would free up loads of jobs that Fox News viewers are just dying to take?

[CMNightRider]

Doesn't the tea bag set say Obama is a Muslim? So telling porkies. Really?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I'm not sure what Obama is. All I know for sure, is he is inept, and less than honest.

[CMNightRider]

What do you call it?

Temporary relief.

Can be reversed at the stroke of the next presidential pen, or by Congress actually passing an immigration bill.

Essentially they're being given work permits.

Why would you call that an "amnesty"?

Oh, I forgot.

Fox told you to.

Temporary relief from what? Loosen those curlers and think. I don't even get Fox News.

Then this is quite a feat of observation on your part:

"God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information"

And it's temporary relief from being deported.

Why, do you think all those Mexicans going home would free up loads of jobs that Fox News viewers are just dying to take?

What on earth are you talking about? Does the term "illegal" mean anything to you? These people are in America illegally. Why would anyone want to reward people who entered the country illegally? Enter any country in the world illegally, and see what happens.

[Chicog]

These people are in America illegally. Why would anyone want to reward people who entered the country illegally? Enter any country in the world illegally, and see what happens.

Well temporarily, at least, they're not.

And that means there are workers to fill not only agricultural jobs, but all the others that have a hiring gap (guess what - unbelievably Fox News was going through this a little while ago in an unrelated story!).

It includes skilled workers in fields like technology, engineering and nursing, as well as those blue collar jobs.

So rather than cut off your nose to spite your face, Obama is actually doing US companies a favour.

And there is the added benefit that they will be paying tax, although of course you many not agree with that

And it doesn't mean people more deserving of deportation won't get it in the neck.

So how about getting the do nothing Congress to approve an immigration reform bill that permanently solves these problems rather than just whinging about it and expecting the next administration to take up the mantle; and the one after that; and the one after that.

The phrase "kicking the can down the road" could not be more apt in this case.

[mania]

So rather than cut off your nose to spite your face, Obama is actually doing US companies a favour.

And there is the added benefit that they will be paying tax, although of course you many not agree with that

And it doesn't mean people more deserving of deportation won't get it in the neck.

So how about getting the do nothing Congress to approve an immigration reform bill that permanently solves these problems rather than just whinging about it and expecting the next administration to take up the mantle; and the one after that; and the one after that.

The phrase "kicking the can down the road" could not be more apt in this case.

Oh I don't really think so............

The reason illegal worker get jobs is because they are illegal.

Most farmers that pull the truck up to illegal corner & say they need 15 pickers today know dang well they

can get 15 pickers here to harvest their crops for far less than what they would pay legal workers earning Federal Minimum wages with benefits mandated

by Federal & State laws for full time workers.

Same goes for landscapers,pool cleaners etc etc etc

So kicking the can down the road is very apt as you say if you mean even less jobs than that which Obama promised back in 2008 campaigns for legal Americans.

Because guess what? Should these workers find themselves legal they will also likely find themselves like millions of others.... quite unemployed/underemployed.

Taxes? Yeah tax burdens because now legally they get food stamps & free medical, welfare cash if they have kids under 5 years of age... etc etc etc

More people deserving deportation don't get it in the neck? So what??? instead those like my wife that paid thousands of dollars & hundreds of hours

in Biometrics, studying for citizenship, filling out forms galore get it in theirs instead?

Man this entitlement thinking for those who do not deserve entitlement is why we left.

Edited November 24, 2014 by mania

[CMNightRider]

These people are in America illegally. Why would anyone want to reward people who entered the country illegally? Enter any country in the world illegally, and see what happens.

Well temporarily, at least, they're not.

And that means there are workers to fill not only agricultural jobs, but all the others that have a hiring gap (guess what - unbelievably Fox News was going through this a little while ago in an unrelated story!).

It includes skilled workers in fields like technology, engineering and nursing, as well as those blue collar jobs.

So rather than cut off your nose to spite your face, Obama is actually doing US companies a favour.

And there is the added benefit that they will be paying tax, although of course you many not agree with that

And it doesn't mean people more deserving of deportation won't get it in the neck.

So how about getting the do nothing Congress to approve an immigration reform bill that permanently solves these problems rather than just whinging about it and expecting the next administration to take up the mantle; and the one after that; and the one after that.

The phrase "kicking the can down the road" could not be more apt in this case.

You are right about U.S. companies benefiting from being able to exploit several million illegals. Somehow, I don't see the American workers benefiting from this fiasco. Why do we even have a border?

[NeverSure]

The only reason that illegals can find employment is that the government pays benefits to lazy Americans who therefore won't work.

Take away the freebies from the lazy and you'll have no more need for illegals. Win win for the taxpayers, the US budget and the American people.

What I usually hear people say is that illegals are taking only jobs that Americans won't do. Well, who's enabling those Americans to sit on their asses while others work and pay for their keep?

America got by without illegals right up until the moment the Feds began to pay welfare and food stamps and housing benefits to the lazy. Now the crybabies say these illegals are needed to do work "Americans won't do." Well, that could be changed in a heartbeat without Obama's stupid ideas which make it all worse.

[Publicus]

<snip>

President Obama Issued a Directive, Not an “Executive Order” or “New Law”

While folks are free to criticize the President, they should at least strive for accuracy. The President did not create a new law, sign an executive order or grant anyone citizenship or amnesty, he merely directed DHS to exercise discretion to grant deferred action to qualified immigrant youth—an action that is well within his power as President..

http://immigrationimpact.com/2012/06/19/president-obama-issued-a-memo-not-an-executive-order/

While I am certain you will disagree, don't you think posting this link was a little disingenuous?

Here we are all geared up to discuss Obama's latest folly of issuing an Executive Order and you spring this link on us that tells us he really didn't sign an Executive Order but, instead, merely issued a directive to Homeland Security for them to exercise prosecutorial discretion.

What I am wondering is, how many people actually clicked on the link to find out it was from action he took in June 2012, over two years ago. How many didn't bother and now don't really know what he did.

Nice try.

Anyone who read the link now knows the full story, which is that the disinformation people on the political right have been at it for some time -- that is the major point of the link.

Some certain posters always read every one of my links, or at the least gives it a good gander, which means I know for certain who the poster is that can benefit most from them.

However, not every poster that I know with the highest confidence will read my links agrees with them or quite gets the exact point of each link. So the reply post about my link is a quick swing but a big whiff.

[snarky66]

While obama richly deserves impeachment we don't have the votes in the Senate to remove him. Much better that he just remain irrelevant and obscure locked up in the White House seething mad that all Americans don't embrace his Marxist theories. The next two years the house & Senate will propose legislation which obstructionist obama will gleefully veto. He will be known as the president of No. Endless vacations, endless flying around on his fleet of airplanes, polluting the atmosphere, endless campaigning for socialist redistributionist ideals. Chicken Little theories that the sky is falling due to global warming hoax.

Ole

Edited November 24, 2014 by snarky66

[up-country_sinclair]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

always rely on UG to find some link after a google, a "fox news contributor" no less, trying to support his fiction.

It also violates forum rule #14:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

Furthermore, the style in which it was copy and pasted (Each sentence lifted from various paragraphs in the original source, but the sentences themselves are copied verbatim) gives the impression that the poster is attempting to claim that he wrote it himself.

[Publicus]

The only reason that illegals can find employment is that the government pays benefits to lazy Americans who therefore won't work.

Take away the freebies from the lazy and you'll have no more need for illegals. Win win for the taxpayers, the US budget and the American people.

What I usually hear people say is that illegals are taking only jobs that Americans won't do. Well, who's enabling those Americans to sit on their asses while others work and pay for their keep?

America got by without illegals right up until the moment the Feds began to pay welfare and food stamps and housing benefits to the lazy. Now the crybabies say these illegals are needed to do work "Americans won't do." Well, that could be changed in a heartbeat without Obama's stupid ideas which make it all worse.

Government transfer programs of social and economic assistance or of direct pump priming are not the root of immigration or of all evil itself. In fact there is nothing evil or wrongheaded about them.

The snafu in all of this is that conservatives and I mean the respectable ones are prey to irrational fears that somebody somewhere or everywhere is getting away with the store. The fact is however that conservative mythology and mythmaking have been refuted and routed by such responsible and credible organizations as the President's Council of Economic Advisors of both political parties, as cited in the first quote below.

Quote

5. Immigrants are a drain on the U.S. economy.

During the 1990s, half of all new workers were foreign-born, filling gaps left by native-born workers in both the high- and low-skill ends of the spectrum. Immigrants fill jobs in key sectors, start their own businesses, and contribute to a thriving economy. The net benefit of immigration to the U.S. is nearly $10 billion annually. As Alan Greenspan points out, 70% of immigrants arrive in prime working age. That means we haven't spent a penny on their education, yet they are transplanted into our workforce and will contribute $500 billion toward our socialsecurity system over the next 20 years

http://www.immigrati...out-immigration

Top 10 Myths About Immigration

http://www.immigrati...out-immigration

Immigration Myths and Facts

Quote

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

https://www.aclu.org...myths-and-facts

[Chicog]

Bit funny that you think benefit recipients can fill the skills gap. Even your beloved Fox News don't think that

[chuckd]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

always rely on UG to find some link after a google, a "fox news contributor" no less, trying to support his fiction.

It also violates forum rule #14:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

Furthermore, the style in which it was copy and pasted (Each sentence lifted from various paragraphs in the original source, but the sentences themselves are copied verbatim) gives the impression that the poster is attempting to claim that he wrote it himself.

Five sentences and no headlines versus three sentences and a headline. Big deal. Summary execution. Off with his head.

You are wrong about UG lifting and copying out of sequence. Read the link and find out. He lifted it verbatim from the same paragraph.

PS: You just violated forum rule 10 by discussing moderation in the open forum.

Edited November 24, 2014 by chuckd

[Publicus]

A presidential action may be lawful at the same time that it is unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional for the president to nullify federal law. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws that affect millions of persons and billions of dollars. It is unconstitutional for him to refuse to enforce laws merely because he disagrees with themparticularly laws that pre-existed his presidential oaths. And it is unconstitutional for him to rewrite laws, even if he is doing so to make them more just.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/20/playing-with-constitutional-fire

always rely on UG to find some link after a google, a "fox news contributor" no less, trying to support his fiction.

It also violates forum rule #14:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

Furthermore, the style in which it was copy and pasted (Each sentence lifted from various paragraphs in the original source, but the sentences themselves are copied verbatim) gives the impression that the poster is attempting to claim that he wrote it himself.

Five sentences and no headlines versus three sentences and a headline. Big deal. Summary execution. Off with his head.

You are wrong about UG lifting and copying out of sequence. Read the link and find out. He lifted it verbatim from the same paragraph.

PS: You just violated forum rule 10 by discussing moderation in the open forum.

As I read it the poster is presenting his opinion and view in respect of a forum rule.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Which puts you OTT again.

[Publicus]

Almost every one of you guys is almost always well and readily researched at almost any given thread.

I am of course commending you.

The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle. The great number of loyalists who watch Faux keep it on throughout the day, which jiggers and skews the ratings.

CNN viewers for instance check in an out during a given day based on the viewer's schedule and the value to each viewer of the news of the day. Breaking news gets some continuous viewership, but most viewers check in at times convenient to them then channel surf, network surf.

Faux viewers are however junkies who eat, breathe, sit through Faux continuously and endlessly. It thus seems Faux has this massive number of viewers when it is in fact the same old unemployed and on welfare Buster and Billie Six Pack sitting there.

"Old unemployed and on welfare?" I sure hope the people who are in charge of this forum are keeping track and present you with some sort of an award for the most immature, nonsensical, and idiotic posts.

God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information regarding Obama's lunacy from granting amnesty to several million illegals, to his lies and deception about ObamCare.

I sure hope the people who are in charge of this forum are keeping track

There could seem to be some sort of desperation effort by the resident far out extremist wingnut radical right posters to get higher authority involved in bailing them out of the mess they've recently put themselves in at a number of threads the past couple of weeks.

If so, that would be a rather limp and wimpy approach to things.

[MJP]

Off-topic post removed. My my that was a big one!

[Jingthing]

Obama.

Crazy like a fox?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/11/21/catch_22_barack_obama_congress_immigration_reform_executive_action?utm_content=bufferce93b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#trending

The Catch-22 of Barack Obama Dealing with Congress could drive anyone nuts, but with his immigration move, Obama is crazy like a fox.
But hey, in this environment when the Congress offers only dysfunction, then the only sane approach is to use the dysfunction to your advantage.... It's not crazy to embrace dysfunction when that's the only way to have something akin to functional government.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Jingthing

[CMNightRider]

Almost every one of you guys is almost always well and readily researched at almost any given thread.

I am of course commending you.

The news network ratings are however called into legitimate question because the television rating agencies check in throughout the 24 hour cycle. The great number of loyalists who watch Faux keep it on throughout the day, which jiggers and skews the ratings.

CNN viewers for instance check in an out during a given day based on the viewer's schedule and the value to each viewer of the news of the day. Breaking news gets some continuous viewership, but most viewers check in at times convenient to them then channel surf, network surf.

Faux viewers are however junkies who eat, breathe, sit through Faux continuously and endlessly. It thus seems Faux has this massive number of viewers when it is in fact the same old unemployed and on welfare Buster and Billie Six Pack sitting there.

"Old unemployed and on welfare?" I sure hope the people who are in charge of this forum are keeping track and present you with some sort of an award for the most immature, nonsensical, and idiotic posts.

God bless Fox News, for keeping people informed with up to date information regarding Obama's lunacy from granting amnesty to several million illegals, to his lies and deception about ObamCare.

I sure hope the people who are in charge of this forum are keeping track

There could seem to be some sort of desperation effort by the resident far out extremist wingnut radical right posters to get higher authority involved in bailing them out of the mess they've recently put themselves in at a number of threads the past couple of weeks.

If so, that would be a rather limp and wimpy approach to things.

What would be wimpy about you being presented some sort of award, for having the most immature, nonsensical, idiotic posts? You should receive recongnition for this. You have a lot of competition and you beat them all out.

I've been accused of a lot of things but being "limp and wimpy" is certainly not one of them.

I suspect as we speak, illegals are streaming across our southern border to be part of the several million illegals being granted amnesty by Obama. I would think the current welfare recipients would be concerned about the dramatic increase in welfare recipients Obama's foolish decision will cause. It must be terrifying for these people to entertain the thought of this money running out and actually having to work for a living.

[Ulysses G.]

As I read it the poster is presenting his opinion and view in respect of a forum rule.

His opinion was extremely foolish. I copied from a paragraph verbatim and gave a link to the source immediately underneath, to entice people to read the rest of the article. How would that indicate that I intended anyone to think that I wrote it? Instead of groundless nitpicking, silly references to Fox and pretending to be a moderator, how about you lot trying to address the legal assessments in the article for a change?

[thailiketoo]

Show me the money. Well..........

Amnestied Illegal Immigrants to Cost Taxpayers $2 Trillion

What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people — who on average have a 10th grade education — into the Social Security and Medicare programs,” Rector said. He used much of the same methodology he incorporated in his May 2013 study on the cost of amnesty to reach his conclusions.

Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” Rector explained.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/24/Robert-Rector-Amnestied-Illegal-Immigrants-to-Cost-Taxpayers-2-Trillion-Over-Their-Lifetime

[Chicog]

Show me the money. Well..........

Amnestied Illegal Immigrants to Cost Taxpayers $2 Trillion

What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people — who on average have a 10th grade education — into the Social Security and Medicare programs,” Rector said. He used much of the same methodology he incorporated in his May 2013 study on the cost of amnesty to reach his conclusions.

Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” Rector explained.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/24/Robert-Rector-Amnestied-Illegal-Immigrants-to-Cost-Taxpayers-2-Trillion-Over-Their-Lifetime

Seriously, you offer a number plucked from the air by an employee of the teabaggers' paymasters, the Koch brothers?

You must be joking.

[thailiketoo]

Show me the money. Well..........

Amnestied Illegal Immigrants to Cost Taxpayers $2 Trillion

What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people — who on average have a 10th grade education — into the Social Security and Medicare programs,” Rector said. He used much of the same methodology he incorporated in his May 2013 study on the cost of amnesty to reach his conclusions.

Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” Rector explained.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/24/Robert-Rector-Amnestied-Illegal-Immigrants-to-Cost-Taxpayers-2-Trillion-Over-Their-Lifetime

Seriously, you offer a number plucked from the air by an employee of the teabaggers' paymasters, the Koch brothers?

You must be joking.

Good example of what is wrong with this thread. You offer name calling and guilt by association in response to an educated opinion and published information.

If you don't like the number offer another valid one. Attacking Breitbart is a perfect example of what I was writing about before. Ad Hominem attacks are not the answer for everything you disagree with.

OK, maybe the man is right or maybe he is wrong. Offer another view instead of another silly attack.

Juan the vegetable picker with a 10th grade education will earn minimum wage and be entitled to all the Federal benefits of John Stewart the immigrant from Scotland who is earning a million a year doing agriculture research.

I think America should let the John Stewarts in and fund the aromatic vegetable picker machines.

You don't agree fine. Good. Offer some other evidence don't attack because you don't agree.

Edited November 25, 2014 by thailiketoo

[chuckd]

Show me the money. Well..........

Amnestied Illegal Immigrants to Cost Taxpayers $2 Trillion

What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people — who on average have a 10th grade education — into the Social Security and Medicare programs,” Rector said. He used much of the same methodology he incorporated in his May 2013 study on the cost of amnesty to reach his conclusions.

Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” Rector explained.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/24/Robert-Rector-Amnestied-Illegal-Immigrants-to-Cost-Taxpayers-2-Trillion-Over-Their-Lifetime

Seriously, you offer a number plucked from the air by an employee of the teabaggers' paymasters, the Koch brothers?

You must be joking.

Good example of what is wrong with this thread. You offer name calling and guilt by association in response to an educated opinion and published information.

If you don't like the number offer another valid one. Attacking Breitbart is a perfect example of what I was writing about before. Ad Hominem attacks are not the answer for everything you disagree with.

OK, maybe the man is right or maybe he is wrong. Offer another view instead of another silly attack.

Juan the vegetable picker with a 10th grade education will earn minimum wage and be entitled to all the Federal benefits of John Stewart the immigrant from Scotland who is earning a million a year doing agriculture research.

I think America should let the John Stewarts in and fund the aromatic vegetable picker machines.

You don't agree fine. Good. Offer some other evidence don't attack because you don't agree.

Your post is "liked" by me and worth a few of these as well.

[Chicog]

Good example of what is wrong with this thread. You offer name calling and guilt by association in response to an educated opinion and published information.

If you don't like the number offer another valid one. Attacking Breitbart is a perfect example of what I was writing about before. Ad Hominem attacks are not the answer for everything you disagree with.

Who said I was criticising Breibart? I expect that site to report Conservative opinion.

I was criticising Rector, who works for the "Heritage Foundation" (read: Teabaggers Foundation).

Here is a contradictory estimate from an Immigration Reform proponent:

Professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of UCLA wrote a paper for Cato last year where he employed a dynamic model called the GMig2 to study comprehensive immigration reform’s impact on the U.S. economy. He found that immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by $1.5 trillion in the ten years after enactment.

Professor Hinojosa-Ojeda then ran a simulation examining the economic impact of the policy favored by Heritage: the removal or exit of all unauthorized immigrants. The economic result would be a $2.6 trillion decrease in estimated GDP growth over the next decade. That confirms the common-sense observation that removing workers, consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs from America’s economy will make us poorer.

Hell, even Rubio thinks they write horse apples:

Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday disputed the recently released study from the conservative Heritage Foundation that warned comprehensive immigration reform would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion, saying the findings in the report are “deeply flawed.”

Mr. Rubio, a member of the bipartisan group of eight lawmakers that is ushering an immigration bill through the Senate, said that the study “is not a legitimate study” because, among other things, it is based over 50 years and overestimates the number of people who will be included in the system.

“The bottom line is, I think as everyone has pointed out, is the study is deeply flawed,” Mr. Rubio said during an appearance on “CBS This Morning.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/sen-marco-rubio-calls-heritage-foundations-immigra/#ixzz3K3cSgWAF

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[zydeco]

Of course, anybody interested in an actual scholarly study of this issue just might approach the leading expert on the subject, George Borjas. Here is the broadcast of a UC roundtable on immigration and economic conditions: http://www.uctv.tv/shows/George-J-Borjas-Costs-of-Immigration-Economics-Roundtable-11726

For those who prefer scholarly articles: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JHC2015.pdf

[thailiketoo]

Good example of what is wrong with this thread. You offer name calling and guilt by association in response to an educated opinion and published information.

If you don't like the number offer another valid one. Attacking Breitbart is a perfect example of what I was writing about before. Ad Hominem attacks are not the answer for everything you disagree with.

OK, maybe the man is right or maybe he is wrong. Offer another view instead of another silly attack.

Juan the vegetable picker with a 10th grade education will earn minimum wage and be entitled to all the Federal benefits of John Stewart the immigrant from Scotland who is earning a million a year doing agriculture research.

I think America should let the John Stewarts in and fund the aromatic vegetable picker machines.

You don't agree fine. Good. Offer some other evidence don't attack because you don't agree.

Who said I was criticising Breibart? I expect that site to report Conservative opinion.

I was criticising Rector, who works for the "Heritage Foundation" (read: Teabaggers Foundation).

Here is a contradictory estimate from an Immigration Reform proponent:

Professor Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda of UCLA wrote a paper for Cato last year where he employed a dynamic model called the GMig2 to study comprehensive immigration reform’s impact on the U.S. economy. He found that immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by $1.5 trillion in the ten years after enactment.

Professor Hinojosa-Ojeda then ran a simulation examining the economic impact of the policy favored by Heritage: the removal or exit of all unauthorized immigrants. The economic result would be a $2.6 trillion decrease in estimated GDP growth over the next decade. That confirms the common-sense observation that removing workers, consumers, investors, and entrepreneurs from America’s economy will make us poorer.

Hell, even Rubio thinks they write horse apples:

Sen. Marco Rubio on Thursday disputed the recently released study from the conservative Heritage Foundation that warned comprehensive immigration reform would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion, saying the findings in the report are “deeply flawed.”

Mr. Rubio, a member of the bipartisan group of eight lawmakers that is ushering an immigration bill through the Senate, said that the study “is not a legitimate study” because, among other things, it is based over 50 years and overestimates the number of people who will be included in the system.

“The bottom line is, I think as everyone has pointed out, is the study is deeply flawed,” Mr. Rubio said during an appearance on “CBS This Morning.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/9/sen-marco-rubio-calls-heritage-foundations-immigra/#ixzz3K3cSgWAF

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I really don't like to have my posts edited by you so I fixed it.

How much do you think the American taxpayer should spend in welfare payments for other countries?

5 million illegal aliens with a 10th grade education. How much do you figure that will cost? How many children will they have? How much will the whole thing cost?

From your study.

"Comprehensive immigration reform generates an annual

increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent. This amounts to

$1.5 trillion in additional GDP over 10 years. It also boosts

wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant

workers. The effects would generate a $5.3 billion increase in

California, a $1.9 billion increase in Los Angeles County, and a

$1.68 billion increase in Arizona"

Maybe you can tell us what your study has to do with what Obama has just done and coincidently the topic of this thread. Has Obama by executive decision instituted a program of comprehensive immigration reform?

Edited November 25, 2014 by thailiketoo

[zydeco]

BTW, people citing "papers" should realize that not all papers are of equal value. Above, for example, a poster cites a paper produced for CATO. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. But realize CATO is a libertarian advocacy organization. For its underlying argument, the above paper cites another paper published by the CATO Institute!!! Borjas, who I cite above, is publishing in the Journal of Human Capital, a peer reviewed professional journal from the University of Chicago Press. Sources matter, too. Compare the sources. This is the way scholars determine A-level research from lesser research and from advocacy journalism. And it takes time to study what is being written. Be prepared for n-u-a-n-c-e. Scholarly studies are usually nuanced. People looking for descriptions such as "teabagger," "faux news," and "wing nutter," are likely to be disappointed.

Edited November 25, 2014 by zydeco

[Chicog]

Maybe you can tell us what your study has to do with what Obama has just done and coincidently the topic of this thread. Has Obama by executive decision instituted a program of comprehensive immigration reform?

Why is that when I respond to *their* posts, the poster then asks me why *I* am going off topic!

And why are you asking me a question to which the answer is in this thread several times?

What you haven't done is provide any evidence that immigration reform will cost the US money; on the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

And more importantly those poorly educated immigrants you deride are still capable of doing blue collar jobs which you still cannot fill, and thus paying tax.

But it's worse:

"There's a perception with farmers and others that immigration reform will help legally bring in more farm workers," said J. Edward Taylor, a professor of agriculture at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on immigration and farm labor issues.

"But it really won't solve the shortage in the long run, if they do pass a reform bill, " he said.

Taylor, who co-wrote a paper this month on farm labor challenges, noted that the main provider of low-wage agricultural workers in the U.S., at nearly 70 percent, has been Mexico.

But Mexico is drying up as a source. That's because rural Mexicans are getting a better education, courtesy of more government spending, and rejecting farm work, even in their own country.

"The nonfarm economy in Mexico is growing and it's creating new jobs that require engineering and managerial skills and giving better wages," said Taylor. "That's where young people are going."

Taylor also said this switch in career goals is adding to the worker shortage as older farm laborers in the U.S. are ready to stop working and aren't going to be replaced. And any replacements that might be on their way have been stopped by tougher border controls and increased deportations.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101671861#.

This constant lie about them all taking jobs from Americans, or just coming for benefits, needs to be challenged.

It sounds as ridiculous as South Park's version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

[thailiketoo]

Maybe you can tell us what your study has to do with what Obama has just done and coincidently the topic of this thread.

Has Obama by executive decision instituted a program of comprehensive immigration reform?

Why is that when I respond to *their* posts, the poster then asks me why *I* am going off topic!

I asked you politely not to edit my posts and you did anyway. So I edited one of yours.

You didn't answer my question.

[JESSVANPELT]

Its so very funny how many bigots exist, Some unseeing Obama will be the worst president ever? I guess bigotry takes a place above the actual facts? Did any body take a look a the improvement in the economy? especially after 911, and the market collapse, no president ever has had to face such a difficult time, but because he is back the bigots fail to acknowledge his success.

On the topic of bad Presidents , Does any one remember when Clinton left office the USA had No debt, and once Mr. Bush took office we went into the worst debt ever, anther thing Obama inherited. So if you want to make a statement , please don't show us what an idiot you are by not including actual facts, I mean FACTS , not Fox new s commentary or your Bigotry feelings.