Link was where, again? Direct quote I specifically asked for from your alleged source was where, again? Some blind link I can not see and evaluate as legitimate from an evasive double-talking troll like you?

I was not born yesterday or the day before. I do not open blind links from people who play evasive games here like you have, mixing illegals and legal immigrants together.

Raise your game here, son. You have not proved that more than half of all illegals were once legals. Pat yourself on the back later. And cut the asides having nothing to do with a straight answer, which mysteriously you repeatedly fail to give.

Quote from: quiller on August 21, 2014, 12:48:06 AM
Link was where, again? Direct quote I specifically asked for from your alleged source was where, again? Some blind link I can not see and evaluate as legitimate from an evasive double-talking troll like you?

What the hell are you talking about? It's Breitbart.com, can you not go to that site?

I just checked it again, both on it's own, and through the post, it works fine.

Here's an Image cap of it:




You're jumping to conclusions. The problem, whatever it is, is on your end.

I just looked up what a "blind link" is, and unless I'm missing something, ah, bullshit.

This is what pops up when I point to the link as posted:



This is the text of the link:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/08/Illegal-immigration-overstay-visas

This is what you see in your address bar when you get to the link:



You aren't re-directed, you don't go through anything else, you just go there.

So once again, whatever the problem is; your end.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:00:00 PM
Why does that matter? They don't mention a single statistic from the comptrollers report, neither 2.1%, nor $17.2 billion is mentioned anywhere in this source of yours, and that's your basis for saying I confused fiscal with economic.

If you understood what GDP is and how it's calculated, you wouldn't say something as stupid as "illegals are good for the economy".  You may think larger government and diseases are great, but your broken window idiocy makes you look like the liberal you're trying to pretend to not be.

Quote
Fiscal drain is a tangent, what I stated is that they are an economic benefit because immigration is an economic benefit.

If you conflate "immigration" with "illegal immigration" one more time, you're gone.  This isn't a forum for you to run through pages to post crap and promote a false narrative.

Quote
That they're illegal doesn't matter to the economy, because "illegal" is a political distinction, not an economic one.

Wrong.  They drain the economy.

Quote
Economics, doesn't conform to political desires.

Incorrect.  Income taxes, for example, hurt the economy.  Minimum wage, for example, hurts the economy.  Those are not free-market concepts, but top-down control by political desires.

Quote
France would get an economic benefit from going through with their sale of that carrier to Russia. They'd be breaking their own trade laws as well as their sanctions in doing it, but economically and economically alone, it's a beneficial action.

Yeah, France is doing great.

Quote
The same to blood diamonds. Engaging in the trade is economically beneficial, that people suffer because of it, to the economy, is beside the point.

That has nothing to do with your claim that illegals are good for the economy.

Quote
The economy can be amoral, and it can invite dumb actions. It is not mutually exclusive to "good things" or "good actions", or in this case, legal actions.

You are conflating the free market with the economy.  The free market is hurt by a larger government.  The illegals hurt moral for normal citizens and Americans, because they are a justification by politicians for a larger government and spending, reaped from taxpayers that would otherwise go back into the economy.  The free market within our borders works just fine, and we don't rely on the third world to boost our economy.  As government is reduced, the economy improves, because free markets boosts the economy.  It's sad I have to explain this to someone who is in their 20s who went to college.

Quote
No you don't, you don't know how many laborers we need because that is a moving target.

Knowing how many laborers are needed has absolutely nothing to do with anything.  The free market handles supply and demand just fine.  With the borders closed and secure, the free market finds labor just fine.  One positive side about libertarians is they understand the free market.  You don't understand the free market at all, nor do you want a secure border.  This means you are a liberal.

We allow liberals to post here, so you don't have to keep this charade up.  Liberal arguments depend a lot on obfuscation.  I made a post about liberal troll tactics a year or so ago: http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cpf-house-cleaning-and-liberal-troll-tactics/

You need to cut your crap out out. Liberals don't have the intellect to pull this crap on us normal, experienced member.  This may work somewhere else, but not here.  I know you are a liberal, so cut it it out.

Quote
Collecting the information to figure out takes so long, that it would be out of date the moment you compiled it.

Only the market knows the answer to this in real time, thus, it should be the market to determine it.

The borders need to be closed.  The illegal aliens are a drain on our economy, and hurt the country.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 20, 2014, 10:29:52 PM
Yes it is, there are only 4 point of legal entry, and none of them balance out with the labor demands immigration is apart of. We are incentivizing illegal immigration by not addressing it.

Did you miss my entire answer?
No it's not! And try keeping your answers a bit shorter, if possible.

And now the rest of the answer to "No It's Not Broken".
Just because you say it isn't make it so. This country has always taken in immigrants, but had you read the link I posted, you'd have noted, there is a limit to just how many are allowed to enter and from where, and your support of open borders restricts those wanting to follow the rules, because a bunch of line jumpers usurped their chance at making a better life for themselves.

QuoteWe for instance reject over 100,000 high skilled immigrants each year, because we don't offer enough H1B visas.

Companies still need them, so they go cynical to get them. Either they hire them when they "show up" at the door, and go to bat for them in the courts so they can stay, or they'll intentionally get them the wrong visa (like a visitor one) so they can at least be legal temporarily. Or for good if our officials don't notice the "error".

Then close the damn border and give the legal ones a shot.

QuoteAnd remember, nigh-half of illegal immigrants, once were legal.
No slight.

That's supposed to be a good thing?

QuoteYou only get your money back if the business succeeds. Since "save a business" is one, guess how many do that, and get their money back?

Who said life was fair? There are costs associated with taking risks, and going into business is one of them.
Obviously you've never opened a business o you wouldn't have posted such a stupid response.

QuoteBut I'm not worried about investors. I'm worried about anyone who doesn't have cash like that upfront, who wouldn't qualify.

Why? Why does it bother your bleeding heart, that someone you'll never meet, don't know even exists can't come here and live?
Think about that myopic idiocy for a moment. You're crying over someone you imagine might be suffering because they want to leave the hell hole they live in.
And you have the audacity to call me a lib? Get a clue!

QuoteHow far back are you thinking? They've been independent since 1965. And they didn't always have an immigration policy this lax, they built up to it.

OK?

QuoteYeah, because the Unions of course are rent seekers looking to protect their turf.

They shouldn't be "at the table" for immigration policy, much less writing it in their back rooms.
Not exactly. Bracero had existed for decades, what concerns me is the period it was managed under Eisenhower.

Under his purview, illegal immigration dropped by 95%, and he did it without adding a single border agent to the 1,000 numbered roster.

I say he built a model to follow, a model we should return to. It would address what is actually causing illegal immigration, and solve it in a way that wouldn't grow the government.

Yes, it's called sealing the border best we can, reinstating quotas and selecting the best people to enter this country.

Why is that so hard to grasp?
Oh, I get it, we need to save the world population. But what about those that want to come, but can't make the trip,, should we sent transport and bring them here, would that satisfy your bleeding heart?

Don't try and claim the immigration system is broken and keeping good people out, when all they have to do is walk across the border and be granted amnesty.
What is broken however, is no one is expected to follow the damn laws!

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 12:40:58 AM
Show me an economic difference.

Or to make this easier...

Show me how or why Illegal immigrants don't contribute to the economy.

At a 93% labor participation rate, you're at an uphill battle.
Trolls are people who incite argument for its own sake. You can be rest assured that I believe every single word that I have posted here.

Let me be blunt, you won't last much longer if you keep trolling that bull shit! I proved your claim to be false, yet you insist on posting fallacies, that shit don't fly here, we have thousands of readers, and repeating lies is something this forum frowns on.

So keep it up, if you're looking to get booted.

Slim, the majority of us in this forum seem to comprehend the difference between LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration.  It doesn't take a "degree", list of stated statistics or lectures to understand that both have different impacts on our economy.  To try to convince us that ILLEGAL immigration has had a positive impact on our economy is futile, ridiculous and quite frankly, now an insult to our intelligence.  Most of us in here understand basic mathematics and are able to use simple logic along with having observed and experienced what is going on first hand.

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 05:02:52 AM
Let me be blunt, you won't last much longer if you keep trolling that bull shit! I proved your claim to be false, yet you insist on posting fallacies, that shit don't fly here, we have thousands of readers, and repeating lies is something this forum frowns on.

So keep it up, if you're looking to get booted.

Liberals and Marxists just never want to come out and say what they are.  That says a lot about what they believe.

Quote from: taxed on August 21, 2014, 04:09:44 AM
Wrong.  They drain the economy.

Alright then, prove it. Show me an estimate I can look at.

Further, distinguish economically how these immigrant categories differ.

Welfare? No, legals take more, because they qualify for more.

Labor participation? No, Legal immigrants work less than illegals, likely because they qualify for more welfare.

Skills? In an age where nigh-half of illegals were once H1-B visa holders, that is no longer clear.

Indeed, this last point is why making the distinction is difficult.

Do you wish to distinguish between illegal Immigrants who cross the border, and those we let in, only to let their visas lapse? As that's the only way we're going to get anywhere.

QuoteIncorrect.  Income taxes, for example, hurt the economy.  Minimum wage, for example, hurts the economy.  Those are not free-market concepts, but top-down control by political desires.

The specific settings to policies are controlled by the politik, but their full out-and-out effects are controlled by Supply & Demand.

Take for instance the Laffer Curve. It holds that the tax rate does not fully control Tax Revenue. If you set the Tax rate at 60%, that does not mean you will get a 60% share of private incomes. More likely, you will get less in return then if you had set the Tax rate at a lower value.

Additionally, you'll get more than if you had set it at a rate close to 0%, or at a rate higher than 60%.

As to Minimum wage, it is undermined by inflation, and by the adjustment of prices. Eventually, if left unadjusted, it becomes close to meaningless, as our current minimum wage sits.

It also never achieves is true goal, for as long as it takes effect, and as Thomas Sowell likes to say: "The True Minimum Wage is Zero."

QuoteThe illegals hurt moral for normal citizens and Americans, because they are a justification by politicians for a larger government and spending,

If you're willing to say this, then I think you'll agree that there exists the political capital to draw a wall around our Welfare state. We simply need to take advantage of it, and sell it in our policies.

I had a Mexican-American coworker once, and we went back and forth several times on immigration, because he *ironically* was for, "sending all the Mexicans back."

He told me stories of his immigrant neighbor and how they were violating building codes in renovating their property, a story of a mother in grocery store buying a stack of pizzas with Food Stamps, and he even brought me the pay stub of one of his immigrant coworkers (mum's the word on how he got that), to ask if I thought he was paying his "fair share" in his taxes.

Now, despite all of this, he still voted for Obama in 2012. I actually helped him do it, by covering for him at work while he went and voted.

But last I talked with him, he was pissed at Obama, for the scandals that were erupting with the IRS, Obamacare's complete failure to be anything it was talked up to be, and yes, his handelling of Immigration.

So I asked him once "If Ted Cruz (who he said he liked somewhat) proposed a measure where we cut off the immigrants from welfare, would you be alright with reforming our Immigration laws, so that they let more people in legally?"

He said alright, so long as we didn't enact amnesty.

And then I asked this "With that platform, would you elect Ted Cruz President?". He said he wasn't sure, I then asked if it was against Hilary, and he said "yes".

Now, this is just one person of course, and I shouldn't draw too much upon it, but I believe he is a microcosm to show, that immigration reform as we want it to be would be possible if we attacked the welfare instead of pussyfooting around it.

People understand that we're low on money, they understand a lot of the illegal immigrants don't pay income taxes.

How hard can it be then, to say "let's cut them off"?

QuoteThe free market within our borders works just fine, and we don't rely on the third world to boost our economy.

Yes we do, we buy products from the 3rd world all the time, we buy raw resources, we buy intermediate goods to put into our final goods, which we then largely sell back to them (cars for one). We spin capital in and out of their economies when we think they're doing good, and remove it when we think they're doing bad.

Again, both capital and Products go across our borders all the time, and Capital is half the equation to Production.

For the economy to be in equilibrium then, labor too, the other half of the equation, must be mobile.

Forcing disequilibrium, makes us poorer and uncompetitive.

QuoteKnowing how many laborers are needed has absolutely nothing to do with anything.  The free market handles supply and demand just fine.  With the borders closed and secure, the free market finds labor just fine.

We have labor shortages all over.

Silicon valley is half Foreign Born, because we can't produce the technical-inclined people we need fast enough to support our own system. Without them, our system would collapse.

And yeah, many of them are the very 40% of former H1-B visa holders I spoke of earlier, so I'm not playing fast & loose here.

QuoteOne positive side about libertarians is they understand the free market.  You don't understand the free market at all, nor do you want a secure border.  This means you are a liberal.

Then why is CATO, a libertarian-think tank on the Free market, pushing for what I have said?

Indeed, going down the line of institutes & Foundations, Adam Smith, Fraser, Independent, Mises Manhattan, LearnLiberty, why do they all sound like me?

Or rather, why did they teach me to sound like this?

Why did Milton Friedman trash Legal immigration in favor of Illegals?

Why is it like this? Where are the Libertarian Organizations claiming the opposite?

All ass kiss slim,

Son, your incessant misuse of nitnoid, random, obtuse, vague, unrelated, opaque, self-satisfying minutiae......has been maxed out here.

We know it's just what self-important little shits do, despite their total lack of experience, real knowledge, or real understanding.......but the day you figure out how to stop doing it, and engage people in an adult, sincere manner, is the day that you'll be accepted by people.

Quote from: taxed on August 21, 2014, 06:27:35 AM
Liberals and Marxists just never want to come out and say what they are.  That says a lot about what they believe.

QuoteWe allow liberals to post here, so you don't have to keep this charade up.

I' am Free Marketeer, not a liberal.

I believe in Natural Law: Life, Liberty, Property, as it was defined by John Locke. I believe in American Exceptionalism strictly as Alex de Tocqueville defined it.

This means I'm against Abortion, for it violates life, I'm against the Affordable Care Act, for it violates Liberty, and I'm Against Department of the Interior's management of Alaskan Oil Reserves, for it violates property.

The Second part means that America is unique for how it (once) used Private Association to address societal ills, instead of Public organization, as nearly all other nations have done.

I believe in the presence of Emergent order, which gave form to Natural Law, Economics, Common Law, and Language.

This means I'am suspicious if not in outright contempt of any laws that seek to place themselves above Common Law.
Emergent order is affirmed by it, something in the very fabric reality. It is an immutable truth you can choose to respect, but never ignore, for its effects will be felt regardless.

Last, but not least, I believe in the Lord my God, my savior and sovereign, who constructed Natural Law as it Exists, which is the key itself to Humans understanding Divine law. The Lord was gracious enough to appoint St. Thomas Aquinas, the namesake of my First High School, to write extensively on the existence of Natural Law and its effects.

I thank him equally for creating Father Robert Sirroco, who helped to further bridge my Catholic beliefs to my Economic imperatives, along with everyone who has joined with him at the Acton institute.

And I thank him for creating the Founders, whose Socratic example of being antagonistic to political power, and harboring great love of Liberty, served as a personal inspiration to me, on top of their creation of a nation in which we live, the one human society on Earth that has come the closest to truly embracing what Natural Law affirms.

And I finally thank him for allowing me to know it. It was by pure chance I could. I' am humbled by it. 

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 04:56:42 AM
Did you miss my entire answer?
No it's not! And try keeping your answers a bit shorter, if possible.

Okay, you're going to have to show me what it is you mean, as I thought winding down my points to as few as possible was what you meant.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 21, 2014, 06:42:23 AM
All ass kiss slim,

Son, your incessant misuse of nitnoid, random, obtuse, vague, unrelated, opaque, self-satisfying minutiae......has been maxed out here.

I'm long winded, I'll give you that, and I don't always know when to hold back.

But that's all it is. I'm not showing off, I'm not being deceitful, and I'm not trying to lose you.

I sometimes go at my own pace, and expect people to pretty much read my mind. That's a flaw of mine, I'll agree.

But something else:

I did not make this personal, nor do I wish to.

From start, even before I took off here, you all decided to call me "liberal" or something worse, from me simply demonstrating dissent on the topic.

Now though, I have shown that yes, Free Market Economists do in fact affirm what I say. It's true, dissent on the Right exists for this topic.

This does not mean you now have to agree with me, but I would appreciate the toning down of the epithets, if only just slightly. In exchange, I'll try to better cater to your requests.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 21, 2014, 06:55:09 AM
Okay, you're going to have to show me what it is you mean, as I thought winding down my points to as few as possible was what you meant.

There is a Hell of a lot more to my reply, than that one line.
Is it that you can't refute what I wrote, is that why you ignored all of reply # 79 and 80?

Quote from: Solar on August 21, 2014, 07:15:42 AM
There is a Hell of a lot more to my reply, than that one line.

Yes, but what's the point if you're telling me you don't find it comfortable to read?

I'd be making an effort, just to further frustrate you.

Show me what you mean, and then I'll tailor my response accordingly.