USA Politics

Well, let's see.

Yes, illegal immigration affects the US economy by allowing foreign workers to access US health care/education/etc.

My overall reaction to that is "meh, who gives a shit".

My second reaction to that is that the author is a fucking xenophobe who has exactly 0 facts to support anything. She only has two facts, one of which is a hypothetical, the other of which is a paltry 1.9 million dollars lost. Woooooooo. Big fucking deal. The US's budget each year is what...2 trillion dollars. This is meaningless, and honestly? She is saying things that aren't supported by her facts - a huge no-no if you want to argue.

A couple quick Google searches have let me see that illegal immigrants provide 1.8 trillion dollars to the US economy each year. Appx. 100 billion dollars are spent to support them across all levels of US government. That's what we call "a good fucking deal".

As for "proving" that illegals take jobs that legals won't take, I don't actually think this is true. I think the actual truth is that "illegals take jobs that legals won't take for the wages illegals accept". That's the difference. Businesses hire illegals because they're cheaper. If businesses were targetted with aggressive anti-illegal immigrant fines, the illegals would lose their jobs quickly. The problem is the US economy would hurt harder than ever because of it.

You can't remove 11 million workers who make less than minimum wage from the system and think everything is gonna be just peachy, because it isn't. Stop trying to simplify an incredibly complex problem, Travis.
 
LooseCannon said:
Well, let's see.

Yes, illegal immigration affects the US economy by allowing foreign workers to access US health care/education/etc.

My overall reaction to that is "meh, who gives a shit".
Click to expand...
We should give a shit because it's our taxes that are paying for that stuff.


A couple other topics I would like opinions on:
Obamacare. After reading this: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-week-s-10-worst-layoffs-feb-11-15?cid=db_articles I must say that it doesn't sound like a very good thing to me.

Also this scares the living shit out of me:
From: http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stor...rder-report-remains-secret-130211?news=847030
orig_Constitution-Free%20Zone%20(graphic-ACLU).gif

Americans have no Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures if they happen to be within 100 miles of the border, according to the “Executive Summary” of a still-secret report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As the ACLU-created map above shows, nearly 2/3 of Americans (197 million people)—including the entire populations of Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, DC, and Michigan—live in this “Constitution free” zone, as do the residents of the nation’s five most populous cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia.



The secret report is DHS’s response (two years late) to critics of its policy, in place since at least 2008, of allowing border control agents, without a warrant or even a suspicion of wrongdoing, to search any travelers’ electronic devices (laptops, cell phones, tablets, cameras, etc.) and seize data they find. According to a Freedom of Information Act request (FOIA) filed three years ago by the ACLU, DHS subjected more than 6,500 travelers—nearly half of them U.S. citizens—to searches under this policy between October 2008 and June 2010.



The Executive Summary of the secret report, which DHS is allowing the public to see, sets forth its conclusions without even summarizing the reasoning underlying them. Thus it asserts that “imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” but is silent on how DHS defines “civil rights/civil liberties benefits” or how it balances these against its institutional needs.



The ACLU, which has already filed an FOIA request demanding the full report, released a statement arguing that “allowing government agents to search through all of a traveler’s data without reasonable suspicion is completely incompatible with our fundamental rights: our Fourth Amendment right to privacy—and more specifically the right to be free from unreasonable searches—is implicated when the government can rummage through our computers and cell phones for no reason other than that we happen to have traveled abroad. Suspicionless searches also open the door to profiling based on perceived or actual race, ethnicity, or religion. And our First Amendment rights to free speech and free association are inhibited when agents at the border can target us for searches based on our exercise of those rights.”
Click to expand...
 
1. NONE OF THOSE LAYOFFS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OBAMACARE.

By "reading the article" I very quickly ascertained that none of those companies are laying anyone off due to Obamacare. Barclays is in the U-fucking-K. Thomson Reuters layed off people in Europe. ING had a change of income from the internet. Pioneer is laying off people in Japan. Westinghouse is laying off people worldwide because of a slowdown in the procurement of nuclear power. National Beef lost Wal-Mart as a customer, so they are laying off because of that. Hudson City was merged into another bank and the layoffs are redundancy-related. Homeward Residential is laying off legal staff, and you can damn well bet they were already paying health care for them. The INL is losing jobs because they have less federal government funding, thanks to the Republicans. The final one says "economic conditions" which might have something to do with Obamacare. Or it could be the rising cost of wheat, who the fuck knows.

The article bitched about Obamacare and then threw numbers at you and hoped you wouldn't notice. It's how people convince you of bad arguments.

Obamacare is a great thing for the USA and it will help the country in ways people cannot currently foresee. National health care is too important to worry about the cost today, and I honestly mean that. I think a single-payer option is a far better approach, but the USA needs what they can get and they need it now. The #1 drag on the US economy is the old health care system.
 
Well, if you Google: negative effects of Obamacare, there sure is a lot of stuff out there that makes it sound like a pretty bad thing. Then again, if you Google: Positive effects of Obamacare, it sounds like a good thing. How the fuck does anyone get a real opinion on it?
 
Well, you have to read. And you have to compare it to your own values.

My values tell me that more health care = a good thing. And that's important to me beyond the cost.
 
It doesn't surprise me, if it's true. The USA has been pushing on 4th Amendment rights hard since 9/11, all in the name of "keeping Americans safe". Ignoring the fact that Americans were plenty safe before 9/11, and that the existing intelligence gathering methods worked except for an executive failure.

I dislike Obama for continuing Bush's policies in these matters. Both men are to blame.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
Show me the proof that no one else will do the jobs illegals are doing.

Also, read this: http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Art...government-funding-of-illegal-immigrants.html
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight. LooseCannon asks YOU for proof and you play dumb, yet you are more than ready to ask me for it when I already have and it is more than readily available? OK here goes:

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...-b-1070-and-laws-like-it-cause-economic-harm/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/law/jan-june11/alabama_06-10.html

Not to mention:


Since you are so concerned about illegals doing "American" jobs, here, take it from them: http://www.ufw.org/toj_play/TOJNEW_12_JAL.html

Here is the interview with Arturo Rodriguez, President of the UFW: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340925/july-08-2010/arturo-rodriguez
 
I had forgotten about that, til you posted that video, Onhell. There was a huge push to get people to go take those jobs, and almost no one took them. Proof enough.
 
I was reading about an attempt to hire 25,000 Americans to do the jobs illegals do and only 11 people took the jobs offered. 11.
 
I'm curious if they would. Who knows how many of those jobs would exist? What would the economy be like?

Let's put it this way: are you against adding 11 million new legal Americans to the system?

Public opinion doesn't make what is right.
 
Ya, we'll never know what things would be like.

If illegals actually go through the steps to be legal, then I would be fine with it.

Yes, I'm happy about it keeping my food prices low and I now have actual proof that most legals don't want those jobs so I'm not too bothered by it.
 
I think the path to citizenship is a good idea - combined with many other possibilities to make 11 million new Americans.
 
Laying off only those with Obama bumper stickers is probably not legal, the layoffs themselves would clearly be fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top