Obama offer to 5m illegal migrants

[Jingthing]

I agree. I think Obama is probably eventually going to be rated by historians as middle level president. But definitely a major historical figure regardless ... due of course to his race, the health care initiative, the gay rights progress, the progress to bring economic recovery, and his role in continuing war with multiple Islamic countries (the "drone" president).

[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!

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.

It's customary on the interweb to edit down the chaff when you are replying to specific points. It stops posts becoming unreadable (and in fact TV eventually limits this anyway).

The answer to your question is all around you. However, I'll reiterate for you:

No, it is not a comprehensive program, nor did Obama try and paint it as such.

It is simply a measure to stop families being torn apart while they wait for Boehner to submit a bill.

[Chicog]

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

What an accolade.

Have you *really* made it when Chuck *really* likes your posts?

[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.

It's customary on the interweb to edit down the chaff when you are replying to specific points. It stops posts becoming unreadable (and in fact TV eventually limits this anyway).

The answer to your question is all around you. However, I'll reiterate for you:

No, it is not a comprehensive program, nor did Obama try and paint it as such.

It is simply a measure to stop families being torn apart while they wait for Boehner to submit a bill.

That is why the whole point of your previous post is completely wrong. You quoted a study that relies on a comprehensive immigration reform. See below that you cut out of my previous post completely changing my meaning.

"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"

I was talking about Obama's executive order and what it would cost. You are not.

If you want me to reply to any more of your posts don't edit mine to change the meaning.

The TV rule is, "16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post."

[Chicog]

I was talking about Obama's executive order and what it would cost. You are not.

If you want me to reply to any more of your posts don't edit mine to change the meaning.

The TV rule is, "16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post."

I didn't change the meaning and certainly not the context, but if you are trying to pin down specifically what Obama's executive order will cost, I would think with a load of legalised aliens paying taxes there would be net income.

Officials said the eligible immigrants will not be entitled to federal benefits ‒ including health care tax credits, food stamps, Medicaid coverage or other need-based federal programs ‒ under Obama's plan.

http://rt.com/usa/207459-obama-executive-actions-undocumented-immigrants/

Notice if you will how this conflicts with what you posted:

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.

Notice also from my earlier posts that "people with a 10th grade education" are needed to fill blue collar jobs.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Chicog

[thailiketoo]

I was talking about Obama's executive order and what it would cost. You are not.

If you want me to reply to any more of your posts don't edit mine to change the meaning.

The TV rule is, "16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post."

I didn't change the meaning and certainly not the context, but if you are trying to pin down specifically what Obama's executive order will cost, I would think with a load of legalised aliens paying taxes there would be net income.

Officials said the eligible immigrants will not be entitled to federal benefits ‒ including health care tax credits, food stamps, Medicaid coverage or other need-based federal programs ‒ under Obama's plan.

http://rt.com/usa/207459-obama-executive-actions-undocumented-immigrants/

Notice if you will how this conflicts with what you posted:

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.

Notice also from my earlier posts that "people with a 10th grade education" are needed to fill blue collar jobs.

People with a 10th grade education are not needed in America. Check out Detroit. 10th grade is considered advanced learning in Detroit (8.5% unemployment). ]

Without looking back I believe the trillion dollar expense was figured from the life of the illegal aliens and family and after 3 years they go on benefits.

[Chicog]

People with a 10th grade education are not needed in America. Check out Detroit. 10th grade is considered advanced learning in Detroit (8.5% unemployment). ]

Without looking back I believe the trillion dollar expense was figured from the life of the illegal aliens and family and after 3 years they go on benefits.

The 10th Grade stuff does not tally with the CNBC article I posted above.

The Trillion Dollar expense figure has been debunked even by Sen. Marco Rubio as being flawed.

It is based on a mythical number of immigrants and a sweeping and stereotypical assumption that they will all automatically require benefits.

You seem to be making an assumption that if you cut benefits to the unemployed of Detroit they will all automatically seek work in the agricultural sector.

Not sure how short of farm workers they are in Michigan.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Chicog

[thailiketoo]

People with a 10th grade education are not needed in America. Check out Detroit. 10th grade is considered advanced learning in Detroit (8.5% unemployment). ]

Without looking back I believe the trillion dollar expense was figured from the life of the illegal aliens and family and after 3 years they go on benefits.

The 10th Grade stuff does not tally with the CNBC article I posted above.

The Trillion Dollar expense figure has been debunked even by Sen. Marco Rubio as being flawed.

It is based on a mythical number of immigrants and a sweeping and stereotypical assumption that they will all automatically require benefits.

You seem to be making an assumption that if you cut benefits to the unemployed of Detroit they will all automatically seek work in the agricultural sector.

Not sure how short of farm workers they are in Michigan.

I'm sure it is. My question to you was and still is how much welfare for South America do you think American taxpayers should pay?

About Michigan and agriculture, MSU states agri-food/agri-energy business at $71.3 billion a year and millions of paying jobs.

It may be a bit high but I believe Michigan produces more cherries than anywhere in the world and has very large apple orchards diary farms and so on. GM's co founder's name was Mott. You may have heard of Mott's apple sauce. He also started using colleges for night school or something like that.

That's the problem about not really knowing much about America. The Mexicans move into Michigan every summer and have for over 50 years.

[up-country_sinclair]

What was the Republican response to the president's executive order?

They left town for vacation. Quietly.

But they made sure to get the extreme elements of their caucus all riled up before they left (He's acting like a king!, He's violating the consitution! Impeachment!, etc...). They're not going to do anything about it because they can't do anything about it. They've already moved on, and the hyper-partisans here are just going to have to do the same.

Republicans need to focus their energies on legislating. They control both houses on congress, and they need to prove that they can govern. If they fail to do that and caught in the trap the president has set, they'll likely lose the senate in '16 because they have 24 seats up.

[Ulysses G.]

They're not going to do anything about it because they can't do anything about it.

Actually, there are a LOT of things they can do about it. Your one-sided crystal ball is still not working properly.

[up-country_sinclair]

OK, enlighten me. In the reality based world, what can they do?

[Ulysses G.]

File lawsuits, prevent funding, block nominations. There are lots of possibilities.

[thailiketoo]

File lawsuits, prevent funding, block nominations. There are lots of possibilities.

Censure

[Chicog]

I'm sure it is. My question to you was and still is how much welfare for South America do you think American taxpayers should pay?

1-

About Michigan and agriculture, MSU states agri-food/agri-energy business at $71.3 billion a year and millions of paying jobs.

2-

It may be a bit high but I believe Michigan produces more cherries than anywhere in the world and has very large apple orchards diary farms and so on. GM's co founder's name was Mott. You may have heard of Mott's apple sauce. He also started using colleges for night school or something like that.

3-

That's the problem about not really knowing much about America. The Mexicans move into Michigan every summer and have for over 50 years.

4-

1- Why is paid employment "welfare" exactly? (Remember Obama is granting Work Permits). And why South America? When did they move Mexico?

2- Michigan's Agriculture industry employs 932,000. Of those, according to MSU, the source you quoted, 45,000 are migrant workers. In fact they say:

Michigan is a major user of migrant farmworkers. Michigan ranks 4th in the number of migrant farmworkers used in the U.S. Approximately, 45,000 migrant farmworkers are employed in the state. Many crops are dependent on migrant farmworkers; this is particularly true for fresh fruits and vegetables. The loss of migrant farmworkers would have an adverse affect on the farmers and the agri-food system. More than 58 percent of the economic impact of the farm sector is derived from crops that use migrant farmworkers. While there is some potential for a level of substitution between labor and equipment, some crops would be suffer profound negative impacts if the access to migrant labor was lost. It has been estimated that the Michigan’s farm output would decline by up to $272 million in the short run and up to $362 million in the long run.

The loss of migrant farmworkers would reduce farm output, increase imports, increase the trade deficit, and increase food prices, especially for fresh fruits and vegetables.

Processing industries would also face increased stress. Some farmers would leave the industry and some land would transfer out of agricultural production likely for 6 development purposes. In order to prevent this from happening, a policy that ensures a stable supply of migrant farmworkers is necessary.

http://productcenter.msu.edu/uploads/files/migrantworkers.pdf

Sounds like legalising them permanently might be a better idea.

3- Interesting, I have a jar of Motts in the cupboard (yes, they sell it to the Middle East) but it's a bit, for want of a better word, "loose" for my liking. Sort of like a sweet apple wallpaper paste. I prefer chunky Bramley Apple sauce myself.

4- Yeah well at least I knew enough about America to know where Mexico sits in it. As well as the next three on the list of illegal immigrant contributors, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

And they ain't in South America, so don't you worry about that too much.

[Chicog]

File lawsuits, prevent funding, block nominations. There are lots of possibilities.

Didn't someone already post that they can't do anything about funding because it comes from a source of income outside Congress' control?

[Chicog]

File lawsuits, prevent funding, block nominations. There are lots of possibilities.

Yeah that blocking of nominations will sure come as a surprise.

[thailiketoo]

I'm sure it is. My question to you was and still is how much welfare for South America do you think American taxpayers should pay?

1-

About Michigan and agriculture, MSU states agri-food/agri-energy business at $71.3 billion a year and millions of paying jobs.

2-

It may be a bit high but I believe Michigan produces more cherries than anywhere in the world and has very large apple orchards diary farms and so on. GM's co founder's name was Mott. You may have heard of Mott's apple sauce. He also started using colleges for night school or something like that.

3-

That's the problem about not really knowing much about America. The Mexicans move into Michigan every summer and have for over 50 years.

4-

1- Why is paid employment "welfare" exactly? (Remember Obama is granting Work Permits). And why South America? When did they move Mexico?

2- Michigan's Agriculture industry employs 932,000. Of those, according to MSU, the source you quoted, 45,000 are migrant workers. In fact they say:

Michigan is a major user of migrant farmworkers. Michigan ranks 4th in the number of migrant farmworkers used in the U.S. Approximately, 45,000 migrant farmworkers are employed in the state. Many crops are dependent on migrant farmworkers; this is particularly true for fresh fruits and vegetables. The loss of migrant farmworkers would have an adverse affect on the farmers and the agri-food system. More than 58 percent of the economic impact of the farm sector is derived from crops that use migrant farmworkers. While there is some potential for a level of substitution between labor and equipment, some crops would be suffer profound negative impacts if the access to migrant labor was lost. It has been estimated that the Michigan’s farm output would decline by up to $272 million in the short run and up to $362 million in the long run.

The loss of migrant farmworkers would reduce farm output, increase imports, increase the trade deficit, and increase food prices, especially for fresh fruits and vegetables.

Processing industries would also face increased stress. Some farmers would leave the industry and some land would transfer out of agricultural production likely for 6 development purposes. In order to prevent this from happening, a policy that ensures a stable supply of migrant farmworkers is necessary.

http://productcenter.msu.edu/uploads/files/migrantworkers.pdf

Sounds like legalising them permanently might be a better idea.

3- Interesting, I have a jar of Motts in the cupboard (yes, they sell it to the Middle East) but it's a bit, for want of a better word, "loose" for my liking. Sort of like a sweet apple wallpaper paste. I prefer chunky Bramley Apple sauce myself.

4- Yeah well at least I knew enough about America to know where Mexico sits in it. As well as the next three on the list of illegal immigrant contributors, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

And they ain't in South America, so don't you worry about that too much.

1. You keep avoiding my question. How much do you think American tax payers should pay for welfare for South America, Latin America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti and all the other places that Obama is trying to fund?

2. Michigan has been using migrant labor for a century. First from the South (losers of the Civil war) and then from Mexico. Most of the crops could be picked mechanically and in my opinion that would be a good idea but why not make the labor permanent? Because there is only 4 months of work in Michigan. Either they go to Mexico where they can live for 8 months on 4 months wages or they go on welfare in Michigan.

[Chicog]

1. You keep avoiding my question. How much do you think American tax payers should pay for welfare for South America, Latin America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti and all the other places that Obama is trying to fund?

It's a ridiculously phrased question, because he is not. If America wants to give money to those countries, it has a foreign aid program.

Most immigrants are there to WORK and many of them already are. As I said, they are not entitled to federal benefits. They will be paying taxes. and that's why he's giving them the security of a work permit. So rather than funding them, they will be contributing to both the national and local economies where they work - except in the minds of people like Rector who can't even get his facts straight on their entitlement to benefits, nor their number.

2. Michigan has been using migrant labor for a century. First from the South (losers of the Civil war) and then from Mexico. Most of the crops could be picked mechanically and in my opinion that would be a good idea but why not make the labor permanent? Because there is only 4 months of work in Michigan. Either they go to Mexico where they can live for 8 months on 4 months wages or they go on welfare in Michigan.

Looks to me like there is something to harvest 8 months a year, including preparation for the next round of crops. So again, you appear to be wrong.

Where did you get this four month figure from?

http://www.pickyourown.org/MIharvestcalendar.htm

And reading various accounts, it seems there are other blue collar jobs that fill the gap in the cold season:

Michigan's undocumented population is smaller compared to other states such as Texas and California, but they are a significant part of the economy, many working in a variety of industries: farming, restaurants, auto supply shops, landscaping. More than half of them are working, 41% are homeowners, and about one-third of them earn 200% of the poverty level, said Global Detroit, an immigrant advocacy group.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/20/michigan-undocumented-immigrants-obama-order/19304089/

I hope this style of quoting satisfies your need for accuracy.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Chicog

[thailiketoo]

1. You keep avoiding my question. How much do you think American tax payers should pay for welfare for South America, Latin America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti and all the other places that Obama is trying to fund?

It's a ridiculously phrased question, because he is not. If America wants to give money to those countries, it has a foreign aid program.

Most immigrants are there to WORK and many of them already are. As I said, they are not entitled to federal benefits. They will be paying taxes. and that's why he's giving them the security of a work permit. So rather than funding them, they will be contributing to both the national and local economies where they work - except in the minds of people like Rector who can't even get his facts straight on their entitlement to benefits, nor their number.

2. Michigan has been using migrant labor for a century. First from the South (losers of the Civil war) and then from Mexico. Most of the crops could be picked mechanically and in my opinion that would be a good idea but why not make the labor permanent? Because there is only 4 months of work in Michigan. Either they go to Mexico where they can live for 8 months on 4 months wages or they go on welfare in Michigan.

Looks to me like there is something to harvest 8 months a year, including preparation for the next round of crops. So again, you appear to be wrong.

Where did you get this four month figure from?

http://www.pickyourown.org/MIharvestcalendar.htm

And reading various accounts, it seems there are other blue collar jobs that fill the gap in the cold season:

Michigan's undocumented population is smaller compared to other states such as Texas and California, but they are a significant part of the economy, many working in a variety of industries: farming, restaurants, auto supply shops, landscaping. More than half of them are working, 41% are homeowners, and about one-third of them earn 200% of the poverty level, said Global Detroit, an immigrant advocacy group.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/20/michigan-undocumented-immigrants-obama-order/19304089/

I hope this style of quoting satisfies your need for accuracy.

1. No there is not something to harvest 8 months a year in Michigan.

2. Since there are countries closer to the immigrants where the GDP is close to America's why do they want to come to America? Dole.

For the actual information of Federal benefits see below.

The average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.

During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.

At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.

Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.

In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.

At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.

In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

[up-country_sinclair]

File lawsuits, prevent funding, block nominations. There are lots of possibilities.

1. Sure, just like that lawsuit they've been threatening to file for months over Obama care. How many law firms have dropped the case up to now? And even if they do get around to actually filing a lawsuit over this executive action, how would that help them in their publicly stated aim of reaching out to Hispanic voters?. Not very well. And if they did file and win, the president would be long out of office by then. So it's basically a waste of time.

2. They can't prevent the funding related to this executive action. The agency responsible is self funded and congress has no authority over it. I guess they could shut down the government again, but that didn't work out too well for them the last time they tried it. It would be a disaster.

3. They've already been blocking nominations for years.

Long story short, Obama won this round--which is why you hyper-partisans are so infuriated. The Republican leadership knows there's nothing they can do about it so they're doing their best to ignore it. They know that they've got to prove to the American public that they can lead and govern effectively. Shutting down the government and filing lawsuits doesn't aid in that pursuit.

[Chicog]

1. You keep avoiding my question. How much do you think American tax payers should pay for welfare for South America, Latin America, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti and all the other places that Obama is trying to fund?

It's a ridiculously phrased question, because he is not. If America wants to give money to those countries, it has a foreign aid program.

Most immigrants are there to WORK and many of them already are. As I said, they are not entitled to federal benefits. They will be paying taxes. and that's why he's giving them the security of a work permit. So rather than funding them, they will be contributing to both the national and local economies where they work - except in the minds of people like Rector who can't even get his facts straight on their entitlement to benefits, nor their number.

2. Michigan has been using migrant labor for a century. First from the South (losers of the Civil war) and then from Mexico. Most of the crops could be picked mechanically and in my opinion that would be a good idea but why not make the labor permanent? Because there is only 4 months of work in Michigan. Either they go to Mexico where they can live for 8 months on 4 months wages or they go on welfare in Michigan.

Looks to me like there is something to harvest 8 months a year, including preparation for the next round of crops. So again, you appear to be wrong.

Where did you get this four month figure from?

http://www.pickyourown.org/MIharvestcalendar.htm

And reading various accounts, it seems there are other blue collar jobs that fill the gap in the cold season:

Michigan's undocumented population is smaller compared to other states such as Texas and California, but they are a significant part of the economy, many working in a variety of industries: farming, restaurants, auto supply shops, landscaping. More than half of them are working, 41% are homeowners, and about one-third of them earn 200% of the poverty level, said Global Detroit, an immigrant advocacy group.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/11/20/michigan-undocumented-immigrants-obama-order/19304089/

I hope this style of quoting satisfies your need for accuracy.

1. No there is not something to harvest 8 months a year in Michigan.

2. Since there are countries closer to the immigrants where the GDP is close to America's why do they want to come to America? Dole.

For the actual information of Federal benefits see below.

The average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.

During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.

At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.

Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.

In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.

At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.

In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

1. Yes there is. I showed you, Plus I showed you other Blue collar jobs filled by immigrants.

2. Everything from the Heritage Foundation and I've already shown you the flaws in that. Even a leading Republican senator disagrees with it. it is not "actual information" whatever that is. It is not even fact.

We appear to be going round in circles.

If you are simply going to cling to the Koch Brothers handiwork, then there isn't really much point in me offering you anything different.

[thailiketoo]

1. No there is not something to harvest 8 months a year in Michigan.

2. Since there are countries closer to the immigrants where the GDP is close to America's why do they want to come to America? Dole.

For the actual information of Federal benefits see below.

The average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.

During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.

At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.

Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.

Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.

In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.

At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.

In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

1. Yes there is. I showed you, Plus I showed you other Blue collar jobs filled by immigrants.

2. Everything from the Heritage Foundation and I've already shown you the flaws in that. Even a leading Republican senator disagrees with it. it is not "actual information" whatever that is. It is not even fact.

We appear to be going round in circles.

If you are simply going to cling to the Koch Brothers handiwork, then there isn't really much point in me offering you anything different.

1. Your opinion is worthless and wrong. Back it up with facts.

2. Your opinion about the Heritage Foundation is worthless. Contradict it with facts.

You seem to think you are some kind of authority. You are a non American poster on Thai Visa.

I gave you specific information above and you have not contradicted any of it.

Lets take one simple false statement, " Plus I showed you other Blue collar jobs filled by immigrants."

False.

The facts,

Thanks to robotics, automation and computers there is simply not as much of a need for physical laborers anymore and nothing is going to reverse that trend.

Right now, it is perfectly legal for big corporations to shut down manufacturing facilities in the United States and send the jobs over to nations on the other side of the globe where it is legal to pay slave labor wages and where there are barely any regulations.

According to Reuters, 23.7 million American workers are either unemployed or underemployed right now. The more "blue collar" you are, the more likely you are to be unemployed.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-blue-collar-jobs-are-dissapearing-2012-1

[Chicog]

1. Your opinion is worthless and wrong. Back it up with facts.

Superb debating skills. I do believe your argument may have run out of steam.

I've quoted sources for every assertion I've made.

I'll quote some more, all of which demonstrate that the flawed documentation to which you cling (while ignoring every source I've posted) are patently false. And your claim that "Obama is trying to fund South America" couldn't be more absurd, could it?

When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund.

It's obvious, and again in case you missed it, one of the GOP'd rising stars agrees with me, the "Heritage Foundation" have plucked numbers from the air to support their Conservative viewpoint.

You might swallow it. I don't.

"You seem to think you are some kind of authority. You are a non American poster on Thai Visa."

Oh, so we are not allowed to challenge falsehoods unless we are American, huh?

Yeah, good luck with that argument, big man. You didn't even know where Mexico is, remember?

[thailiketoo]

1. Your opinion is worthless and wrong. Back it up with facts.

Superb debating skills. I do believe your argument may have run out of steam.

I've quoted sources for every assertion I've made.

I'll quote some more, all of which demonstrate that the flawed documentation to which you cling (while ignoring every source I've posted) are patently false. And your claim that "Obama is trying to fund South America" couldn't be more absurd, could it?

When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund.

It's obvious, and again in case you missed it, one of the GOP'd rising stars agrees with me, the "Heritage Foundation" have plucked numbers from the air to support their Conservative viewpoint.

You might swallow it. I don't.

"You seem to think you are some kind of authority. You are a non American poster on Thai Visa."

Oh, so we are not allowed to challenge falsehoods unless we are American, huh?

Yeah, good luck with that argument, big man. You didn't even know where Mexico is, remember?

You edited my post again completely changing it's meaning in contradiction of Thai Visa rule:

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

I asked politely three times. Three times you have ignored me and changed the meaning of my posts by editing in contradiction of Thai Visa rules. You are on my ignore list and I would suggest to anyone else who finds your posting style offensive and argumentative do the same.

Edited November 25, 2014 by thailiketoo

[Ulysses G.]

Long story short, Obama won this round

Your crystal ball still isn't working and I can't remember it ever working in the past. You've got an excellent record for guessing wrong about just about everything and Obama has not done much better. We will just have to wait and see.

Edited November 25, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

1. Your opinion is worthless and wrong. Back it up with facts.

Superb debating skills. I do believe your argument may have run out of steam.

I've quoted sources for every assertion I've made.

I'll quote some more, all of which demonstrate that the flawed documentation to which you cling (while ignoring every source I've posted) are patently false. And your claim that "Obama is trying to fund South America" couldn't be more absurd, could it?

When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund.

It's obvious, and again in case you missed it, one of the GOP'd rising stars agrees with me, the "Heritage Foundation" have plucked numbers from the air to support their Conservative viewpoint.

You might swallow it. I don't.

"You seem to think you are some kind of authority. You are a non American poster on Thai Visa."

Oh, so we are not allowed to challenge falsehoods unless we are American, huh?

Yeah, good luck with that argument, big man. You didn't even know where Mexico is, remember?

You edited my post again completely changing it's meaning in contradiction of Thai Visa rule:

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

I asked politely three times. Three times you have ignored me and changed the meaning of my posts by editing in contradiction of Thai Visa rules. You are on my ignore list and I would suggest to anyone else who finds your posting style offensive and argumentative do the same.

I edited your post to shorten it. If you think I broke the rules, report it or stop whining about it.

[chuckd]

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

What an accolade.

Have you *really* made it when Chuck *really* likes your posts?

You've never received such an accolade from me.

Put it on your bucket list.

[Chicog]

It's right up there with having my gonads roasted on an open fire

[chuckd]

With the proper incentive, I would be glad to fulfill your bucket list wishes.

I take American Express.

[up-country_sinclair]

Who do you think is more frustrated and angry over the political events of the last two weeks? Republican leadership (John Boehner/Mitch McConnell) or Barack Obama?

Republicans really need to get their act together and pass some tough legislation that the president will have no choice but to sign. They have to be smart and box him into a corner, because If he keeps winning like he has on this immigration/executive order commotion, then I really don't think they deserve to wield any authority in Washington DC.