PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) Thank you for posting something from the Heritage Foundation from 2010. No bias there. Even the Cato institute called that study bull****. CATO, formerly the Charles Koch Foundation.. https://www.cato.org/blog/heritages-flawed-immigration-analysis Quote On Monday, Heritage released a new study entitled “The Fiscal Cost of unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer” by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, PhD. I criticized an earlier version of this report in 2007, arguing that their methodology was so flawed that one cannot take their report’s conclusions seriously. Unfortunately, their updated version differs little from their earlier one. I’m joined in this view by a host of prominent free-marketeers. Jim Pethokoukis at AEI, Doug Holtz-Eakin at American Action Forum, Tim Kane at the Hudson Institute, and others have all denounced the fundamentals of the Heritage report. Edited February 22, 2017 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, PleaseBlitz said: Thank you for posting something from the Heritage Foundation from 2010. No bias there. Are low income families a boon to tax collection? We can quibble over numbers all day if ya wish......we need to start with how many are here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, twa said: Are low income families a boon to tax collection? We can quibble over numbers all day if ya wish......we need to start with how many are here. It's not quibbling over numbers. You are just misinformed, as evidenced by the bull**** source you cited to. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, visionary said: Wont that create a potential problem once the new Exec Order is issued and challenged in Court? Hypothetically, that could lead to 2 different judicial decisions contradicting themselves. I imagine the Courts would have to merge them and that sounds like a pain in the butt. I also imagine a stay of the new Exec Order would be bolstered by arguing that not staying the new Exec Order would lead to confusion and uncertainty given that the same general controversy is still pending final resolution in another case. From the outside looking in, I dont see how this will help Trump but im sure he has a bunch of very smart attorneys advising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: It's not quibbling over numbers. You are just misinformed, as evidenced by the bull**** source you cited to. As opposed to the BS you are spreading. The CBO has done studies showing net loss...old of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, twa said: As opposed to the BS you are spreading. The CBO has done studies showing net loss...old of course. Still waiting for you to offer up any factual support for your assertions (not alternative facts). Not holding my breath. Edited February 22, 2017 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said: Wont that create a potential problem once the new Exec Order is issued and challenged in Court? Hypothetically, that could lead to 2 different judicial decisions contradicting themselves. I imagine the Courts would have to merge them and that sounds like a pain in the butt. I also imagine a stay of the new Exec Order would be bolstered by arguing that not staying the new Exec Order would lead to confusion and uncertainty given that the same general controversy is still pending final resolution in another case. From the outside looking in, I dont see how this will help Trump but im sure he has a bunch of very smart attorneys advising. When they issue a new one the old would be rescinded with nothing to merge. 1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said: Still waiting for you to offer up any factual support for your assertions. Not holding my breath. I've offered more than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, twa said: I've offered more than you. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/15/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-state-local-services-column/83080208/ http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2016.pdf http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/ http://www.inc.com/steve-mendelsohn/believe-it-or-not-undocumented-immigrants-pay-a-ton-in-taxes.html http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, twa said: When they issue a new one the old would be rescinded with nothing to merge. Follow the ball my friend. Spicer said the WH would not be rescinding the orig Exec Order. Did you read the WSJ article Visionary posted that I was referring to before commenting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 It wouldn't be that hard to stop illegal immigration if either party really wanted to. You don't need some stupid wall to do it either. There's a reason we don't do it though and the reason is that illegal immigrants are a net positive for the well-being of the country. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 41 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Thank you for posting something from the Heritage Foundation from 2010. No bias there. Now now...the Heritage Foundation did come up with this sweet sounding market based reform to healthcare with mandates for coverage and free market exchanges where people can shop for insurance. If only Obama had adopted that like Romney urged him to in the WSJ, instead of whatever it was he did... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/15/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-state-local-services-column/83080208/ http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2016.pdf http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/ http://www.inc.com/steve-mendelsohn/believe-it-or-not-undocumented-immigrants-pay-a-ton-in-taxes.html http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes Mine showed they paid taxes, where is your support for they pay more than they receive? Or do you prefer the FAIR study in your link over Heritages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Still waiting for you to post ANYTHING of substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: Still waiting for you to post ANYTHING of substance. Still waiting for you to do more than post saying they pay taxes. Do you consider the FAIR study substance?....they agree with me. Do you consider where your links claim if they were given legal status they would pay more taxes substance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Just now, twa said: Still waiting for you to do more than post saying they pay taxes. Do you consider the FAIR study substance?....they agree with me. Do you consider where your links claim if they were given legal status they would pay more taxes substance? So it sounds like you are intent on not adding anything, just more questions without answers. That's fine, you were just trying to move the goalposts away from "mass deportations are bad for the economy" anyways. No point in indulging you any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 10 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Screw that, you guys on the Right wanted an end to PC, call them out on their BS don't do the "meh it's the internet whatcha gonna do?" line. These are people who more often than not tend to agree politically with you these are your brother and sister Republicans, you tell us that we need to hold our own accountable, but then you guys fall silent. And you wonder why your party has been taken over by racists. You want PC gone so you can yell and insult everyone else but your own. I don't identify with them on really much at all these days, and I'm not really concerned with the fact that you and others get riled up over comments on Internet articles. Seems like a waste of time to me, but it's your time so have at it. I default to being a misanthrope and thats not limited to party. I realize you have a warped view of my political views because I don't freak out over everything the way you constantly do, but I didn't do that under Obama either. I actually have a high opinion of Obama, and an incredibly low opinion of trump, but between it being impossible to keep up and having nothing to add that hasn't already been said I haven't said much. Anyways, that's about the limit on time I'm willing to dedicate to your absurd arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Mass deportations would certainly hurt the economy, at least in the short term. That does not change the fact they are a liability, one even your links hopes is negated by their children as they become workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 One solution that might make sense is to tie welfare entitlement to work credit or natural born status, applicable to both legal and illegal immigrants (would probably have to extend the citizenship qualification to 10 years or 40 work credits to make it work). I think the heritage number counts assistance to US citizen children with illegal immigrant parent as assistance paid to "undocumented immigrant household". I think the country would probably decide to cover those children regardless of parents' status, but I could be wrong of course. I think we can start with the broad goal of letting productive illegal immigrants obtain legal status and figure out the details to ensure what criteria they would have to meet as they move through the phases towards full legalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 We have tried that broad goal before....the problem has simply grown. Quote http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/todays-immigration-debate-rooted-reagan-amnesty-experts-say/ the problem lies in how the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 was implemented. He described the passage of the bill as something of a “con-job” that allowed millions of immigrants in the country illegally to have legal status with a promise of workplace enforcement and other measures to curb future illegal immigration. But that didn’t happen, he said. And there was little incentive to follow through on promises of strict workplace enforcement, he said, once millions of people were legalized. they left out enforcing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 14 minutes ago, bearrock said: One solution that might make sense is to tie welfare entitlement to work credit or natural born status, applicable to both legal and illegal immigrants The problem with that is 10-15 years from now it'll be an argument over getting rid of that. It'll be something like: how can you penalize a person in a bad spot after they worked hard etc. It'll be another play on emotions. Which is fine, I'm not saying the argument doesn't have merit, just that I don't think that's the compromise you are suggesting it is because it's obvious that'll eventually be argued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said: Illegal immigrants pay A LOT more in taxes than they receive in benefits. That sounds like a really big claim, that would be really tough to support. (And, I note, you haven't even tried to do so.) 2 hours ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said: From the outside looking in, I dont see how this will help Trump but im sure he has a bunch of very smart attorneys advising. What exactly makes you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 You'll get no argument from me that ongoing enforcement and border control has to be part of any immigration reform going forward and that politicians shouldn't just try to pander 10-15 years down the road, but I certainly acknowledge both of your points. Just seems like mass deportation is a poor solution to a nuanced problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/15/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-state-local-services-column/83080208/ http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes http://www.itep.org/pdf/immigration2016.pdf http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/ http://www.inc.com/steve-mendelsohn/believe-it-or-not-undocumented-immigrants-pay-a-ton-in-taxes.html http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes Could you point or quote the part of the above that shows that illegals pay more to the government than they consume? (You know, the claim you made?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 13 minutes ago, twa said: they left out enforcing Pointing out that your quote says that they didn't crack down on illegal employers. Something which, traditionally, Democrats have tried to do (although maybe not enough), and Republicans have opposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now