|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 09 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. He made a claim, I addressed it with two perfectly valid sources. Feel free to discuss their merits specifically if you'd like (if possible with different arguments than the very insightful "they're boring"). Just look at the first page of the document you linked and tell me it's not propaganda lol.
On June 09 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. Are you saying that this issue is so politically charged that there is a ton of inaccurate, biased and misleading information on it from all sides that has the sole purpose of giving people a distorted view pro and cons of immigration? You said it better than I could.
|
On June 09 2016 06:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. He made a claim, I addressed it with two perfectly valid sources. Feel free to discuss their merits specifically if you'd like (if possible with different arguments than the very insightful "they're boring"). Just look at the first page of the document you linked and tell me it's not propaganda lol. Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. Are you saying that this issue is so politically charged that there is a ton of inaccurate, biased and misleading information on it from all sides that has the sole purpose of giving people a distorted view pro and cons of immigration? You said it better than I could. Economic Policy Institute is not particularly known for being partisan, but they are very pro-labor and workers. I would say propaganda is a bit strong, but they do lean in the direction of economic benefits over costs. I am sure there are costs being omitted from this study.
|
On June 09 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote: Economic Policy Institute is not particularly known for being partisan Well, if they were known for being partisan, they wouldn't be very good at being propaganda anymore!
|
On June 09 2016 06:17 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. He made a claim, I addressed it with two perfectly valid sources. Feel free to discuss their merits specifically if you'd like (if possible with different arguments than the very insightful "they're boring"). Just look at the first page of the document you linked and tell me it's not propaganda lol. I linked a policy memo and an EPI factsheet summarizing some basic facts about the economic impact of immigration on the U.S. economy, with both documents including references for further reading. It's an easy-to-read introduction for people who are not familiar with the reality of the topic. You clearly have nothing of substance to reply to me, so why bother? Just move on.
|
On June 09 2016 06:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:17 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. He made a claim, I addressed it with two perfectly valid sources. Feel free to discuss their merits specifically if you'd like (if possible with different arguments than the very insightful "they're boring"). Just look at the first page of the document you linked and tell me it's not propaganda lol. On June 09 2016 06:14 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. Are you saying that this issue is so politically charged that there is a ton of inaccurate, biased and misleading information on it from all sides that has the sole purpose of giving people a distorted view pro and cons of immigration? You said it better than I could. Economic Policy Institute is not particularly known for being partisan, but they are very pro-labor and workers. I would say propaganda is a bit strong, but they do lean in the direction of economic benefits over costs. I am sure there are costs being omitted from this study. Even the whole idea of cost / benefit study is heavily biased. There are huge social questions behind migrations that are not questionned at all trough a (monetary) cost benefit analysis, like its effect of spatial segregation (a HUGE reality in the US, barely ever talked about, while in France it's not even half as bad as the US and we talk about it non stop) for exemple.
On June 09 2016 06:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:17 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. He made a claim, I addressed it with two perfectly valid sources. Feel free to discuss their merits specifically if you'd like (if possible with different arguments than the very insightful "they're boring"). Just look at the first page of the document you linked and tell me it's not propaganda lol. I linked a policy memo and an EPI factsheet summarizing some basic facts about the economic impact of immigration on the U.S. economy, with both documents including references for further reading. It's an easy-to-read introduction for people who are not familiar with the reality of the topic. You clearly have nothing of substance to reply to me, so why bother? Just move on. We've been over this discussion already : the economic effect of migration is not homogeneous. It's very different on the scale of income or throughout time (with negative effects mostly in the short run, which directly create a lot of question when the flow of migrants is constant and not sequenced). There is also a lot to say about simply comparing the contribution to the state budget of migrants vs non migrants and believing that it is sufficient to argue anything : what you would actually need to do is prove that the overall gov. spending / taxation per capita is similar or better in the actual situation vs an hypothetical situation without migrants.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's a lie to say the hamilton project isn't interested in policy advocacy.
but on the issue itself, the immigrants themselves are mostly productive and also dynamic. spatial segregation is totally exaggerated for second generation and onward immigrants.
immigration does have some knock on effects on domestic labor so that needs addressing too.
|
On June 09 2016 04:56 SK.Testie wrote: You can't have a chance at a happy life in Mexico? Sounds like those industrious workers should stay there and work on a way to Make Mexico Great Again.
If meme's were cool, this is where I would post one of indigenous people of North America (including Mexicans) saying something to the effect of "Yeah, we wish Europeans did the same."
Though I guess the French were generally amiable to cohabitation so I shouldn't lump them in.
|
On June 09 2016 05:54 pmh wrote: That's an interesting story. I have also been puzzled by how effective walls have been through out history. Many settlements in the middle ages had walls around them,some of which you can still see and visit today. And then there is off course the castle, which is basicly a house with a big wall around it. Maybe its the high ground advantage when standing on the wall and fighting people trying to climb it with ladders and siege towers,It also shiels from incoming projectiles a bit.There are probably a lot of things to it but it must have been at least somewhat succesfull as wall building is so wide spread.
the basic thing is that a manned wall is very effective, an unmanned wall does little. If you can afford to man the entire area of a wall, then it works reasonably well; though forces stretched thin may still have issue if the opponent concentrates forces heavily on one area.
Town defense walls varied in size, but many focused on the core buildings of the city, eschewing outlying farmland; and when attacked, everyone would go inside the walls for safety; this meant the area wasn't too large, AND you had a lot of manpower to help cover the walls thoroughly. If you have someone every 20 feet on a wall, with reserves that can counter any focused pushes by an attacker, it's quite hard to get in. Very long perimeter walls tend to be less effective (again it depends on how much manpower you can support on them). The US-mexico border is some 2k miles iirc, with some difficult terrain, so the manpower required is quite extensive, since you have to have 24/7 coverage.
A wall surrenders the strategic initiative, so your opponent can choose when and where (including night-time, bad weather) to try to break through. One of the other reasons walls helped vs such things is that any walled city/fort would have an army, so the hostile army needs to be bigger and/or stronger to beat you on the field of battle. An army that big needs a lot of food, and with defenders storing their food inside the walls (usually enough for months/years), the attacking army may run out of food before the defenders, unless they have strong logistics support, which is quite expensive. This changes the strategic initiative somewhat, as puts a time pressure on the attacker.
If attackers spread out to forage for more food, they can leave themselves open to focused sorties from the defender. And if the defender has more high ground advantage, they can much more easily see when/where the attackers are spreading out.
Since illegals goal is stealthy entry, rather than conquest, and they operate in small numbers, they can easily fully retain the strategic initiative, and only go when the timing is best; as keeping themselves fed on the other side of the wall isn't notably hard these days.
Castles are also often placed at the best transit points (river junctions, the best pass through a mountain), so they strongly limit the ability of an attackers supply lines to go past without taking the castle. And an attacker just walking past may open themselves up to strikes from behind, or enveloping attacks.
i'm sure there's a few more things I could think of to say, but this seems like enough for now.
one addition: in ian invading army situation, all the people in town drop wahtever else their doing and focus on defense/survival; but in a sneaking in/immigrant situation, the threat generally isn't large enough to warrant that kind of response, which means the manpower available is much smaller.
|
On June 09 2016 06:26 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:25 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 06:17 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 06:13 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 06:07 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:57 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 05:51 WhiteDog wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. Boring ass argument. The discussion on immigration is null, boring, and shows the wild stupidity of modern politics. Thanks for that fantastic insight. You're welcome, I just add to between one guy that believe migrants are leeching the non existant american welfare, when they're for the most part very hard workers that the rich/inequalities force into migration and abuse of, and one guy that believe in biased studies on the effect of migration on the economy. He made a claim, I addressed it with two perfectly valid sources. Feel free to discuss their merits specifically if you'd like (if possible with different arguments than the very insightful "they're boring"). Just look at the first page of the document you linked and tell me it's not propaganda lol. I linked a policy memo and an EPI factsheet summarizing some basic facts about the economic impact of immigration on the U.S. economy, with both documents including references for further reading. It's an easy-to-read introduction for people who are not familiar with the reality of the topic. You clearly have nothing of substance to reply to me, so why bother? Just move on. We've been over this discussion already : the economic effect of migration is not homogeneous. It's very different on the scale of income. There is already a lot to say about simply comparing the contribution to the state budget of migrants vs non migrants and believing that it is sufficient to argue anything : what you would actually need to do is prove that the overall gov. spending / taxation per capita is similar or better in the actual situation vs an hypothetical situation without migrants. As usual, you do not pay attention to what other posters are actually saying, and you reply instead to your projection of what their posts contain. I did not claim that the economic effect of migration was homogeneous, and neither did the sources I linked to -- in fact, they explain the opposite. It is not a position I defended in our previous discussions on the topic either. The sources I link to also do not "simply compar[e] the contribution to the state budget of migrants vs non migrants and believ[e] that it is sufficient to argue anything". What am I supposed to reply to your imaginary depictions of the contents of the sources? I don't know. The EPI factsheet points to research studying what immigrants both receive from, and contribute to, government budgets at various levels, as well as the impact of their presence on U.S. soil on wages and jobs (for different categories again). It's a perfectly legitimate way to assess their net fiscal impact, whether you like it or not.
With regards to your comments on the economic dimension being only one aspect of the immigration issue, I agree entirely. I don't know what in my posts is supposed to have made you believe otherwise. I was replying to GGTeMpLaR, who made a very specific (yet uninformed) claim about the impact of illegal immigrants on government finances. The purpose of my post was not to initiate a wide discussion about the various dimensions of immigration but to address that specific claim. If you want to launch such a wider debate, be my guest.
|
In a consequential shift to how House Speaker Paul Ryan hoped to proceed with House business, Republican leadership announced Wednesday it will limit the consideration of amendments, which Democrats had been using to inflict political chaos.
While the move to a so-called "structured rule" reeks of insidery wonky parliamentary maneuvering, it is a significant departure from how Ryan had promised to run the House. It is also implicitly a concession that Democratic efforts to make life miserable for House Republicans by introducing politically awkward amendments had been effective. The most prominent of those amendments -- one that preserved protections for LGBT Americans -- derailed a major energy appropriations bill last month.
With the change, members will not be able to freely introduce amendments without going through the House Rules Committee, a move that could limit the amendments considered on legislation. Any amendments will be approved through the House Rules committee prior to a vote hitting the floor, an attempt to stop controversial amendments from sinking the must-pass spending bills.
Any member can still submit amendments, but the Rules Committee will have the final say.
The shift signifies Ryan's reckoning with reality. When he took the Speaker's gavel, the former Budget Committee chairman pledged he was committed to opening up the legislative process even when that meant forcing members to take tough votes. But free-wheeling and politically charged amendments have made it a tough promise for Ryan to keep. A source in a Republican conference meeting told TPM that it became clear "Democrats will continue to offer contentious amendments, but then not support bills on final passage."
In May, the House of Representatives fought bitterly over an amendment that banned government contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees. At first, the amendment was introduced on the floor and failed to pass after some Republicans flipped their votes. A week later the LGBT amendment passed, but it sunk the underlying energy and water appropriations bill.
Ryan accused Democrats of sabotaging the process and promised he would meet with his conference when members returned from recess to decide how he would move forward.
“The Democrats were not looking to advance an issue," he said at the time. "They were looking to sabotage the appropriations process. ... They are trying to stop the appropriations process in its tracks."
Wednesday it was announced that there would be structured rules for the rest of the year's appropriations process, which stoked anxieties within conservative ranks and upset Democrats. Ryan's call for a more open process had been one of the key reasons conservatives supported his rise to be speaker in the first place. It had been a convincing argument for the House Freedom Caucus, who criticized Boehner as not being receptive enough to them.
But, the clock is ticking. Congress must approve the spending bills by Sept. 30 to avert a government shutdown.
Source
|
On June 09 2016 07:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +In a consequential shift to how House Speaker Paul Ryan hoped to proceed with House business, Republican leadership announced Wednesday it will limit the consideration of amendments, which Democrats had been using to inflict political chaos.
While the move to a so-called "structured rule" reeks of insidery wonky parliamentary maneuvering, it is a significant departure from how Ryan had promised to run the House. It is also implicitly a concession that Democratic efforts to make life miserable for House Republicans by introducing politically awkward amendments had been effective. The most prominent of those amendments -- one that preserved protections for LGBT Americans -- derailed a major energy appropriations bill last month.
With the change, members will not be able to freely introduce amendments without going through the House Rules Committee, a move that could limit the amendments considered on legislation. Any amendments will be approved through the House Rules committee prior to a vote hitting the floor, an attempt to stop controversial amendments from sinking the must-pass spending bills.
Any member can still submit amendments, but the Rules Committee will have the final say.
The shift signifies Ryan's reckoning with reality. When he took the Speaker's gavel, the former Budget Committee chairman pledged he was committed to opening up the legislative process even when that meant forcing members to take tough votes. But free-wheeling and politically charged amendments have made it a tough promise for Ryan to keep. A source in a Republican conference meeting told TPM that it became clear "Democrats will continue to offer contentious amendments, but then not support bills on final passage."
In May, the House of Representatives fought bitterly over an amendment that banned government contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees. At first, the amendment was introduced on the floor and failed to pass after some Republicans flipped their votes. A week later the LGBT amendment passed, but it sunk the underlying energy and water appropriations bill.
Ryan accused Democrats of sabotaging the process and promised he would meet with his conference when members returned from recess to decide how he would move forward.
“The Democrats were not looking to advance an issue," he said at the time. "They were looking to sabotage the appropriations process. ... They are trying to stop the appropriations process in its tracks."
Wednesday it was announced that there would be structured rules for the rest of the year's appropriations process, which stoked anxieties within conservative ranks and upset Democrats. Ryan's call for a more open process had been one of the key reasons conservatives supported his rise to be speaker in the first place. It had been a convincing argument for the House Freedom Caucus, who criticized Boehner as not being receptive enough to them.
But, the clock is ticking. Congress must approve the spending bills by Sept. 30 to avert a government shutdown. Source Where was this consideration for amendments when Republicans were sticking "defund PP" on to everything they could touch.
The whole concept of amendments should just be removed. If you want something else done go make a separate bill for it like the rest of the world does.
|
On June 09 2016 06:29 oneofthem wrote: spatial segregation is totally exaggerated for second generation and onward immigrants. I'm amazed at this comment.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FIDseul.png)
The average white child attends a school that is over 78% white. Only 9% of other children in this typical school are black, 8% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. Though children often do not attend neighborhood school, the racial composition of schools attended by white kids closely matches that of their own neighborhood. In sharp contrast, the average black child’s school is more than half black (57%). Hispanic children also are in majority Hispanic schools (57%). And Asians, despite being only 4% of elementary population, are in schools that average 19% Asian. Each minority group’s exposure to white children is declining. In 1989-90, 32% of the average black child’s schoolmates were white; that has dropped to 28% in 1999-2000. Similar drops were experienced by Hispanics (from 30% to 25%) and Asians (52% to 46%). http://www.s4.brown.edu/cen2000/SchoolPop/SPReport/SPDownload.pdf
This is exaggerated to you ?
|
That's races of people already here. Not immigrants, right?
|
On June 09 2016 07:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 06:29 oneofthem wrote: spatial segregation is totally exaggerated for second generation and onward immigrants. I'm amazed at this comment. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FIDseul.png) Show nested quote +The average white child attends a school that is over 78% white. Only 9% of other children in this typical school are black, 8% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. Though children often do not attend neighborhood school, the racial composition of schools attended by white kids closely matches that of their own neighborhood. In sharp contrast, the average black child’s school is more than half black (57%). Hispanic children also are in majority Hispanic schools (57%). And Asians, despite being only 4% of elementary population, are in schools that average 19% Asian. Each minority group’s exposure to white children is declining. In 1989-90, 32% of the average black child’s schoolmates were white; that has dropped to 28% in 1999-2000. Similar drops were experienced by Hispanics (from 30% to 25%) and Asians (52% to 46%). http://www.s4.brown.edu/cen2000/SchoolPop/SPReport/SPDownload.pdfThis is exaggerated to you ?
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. Can you be specific? The graphs don't look so bad to me considering one % of the population is a majority. It's not like it's a 40/30/30 split on the population.
This kind of reminds me of that recent storm the media tried to create about segregation in a Mississippi district. But when interviewed most of the school kids seemed fine with it. It wasn't 1 school was 100% white and the other 100% black either.
One was 78-86% x or y and the other was.. something similarish I don't remember but it seemed silly once reporters interviewed the kids and they didn't really care.
It just kinda felt like an SJW went nuts and said 'WHY ISN'T THIS 50/50!' and the community was... " ??? "
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
primary reason for me saying that is that immigrants tend to be geographically mobile, more willing to move to places of economic opportunity. there is some concentration in terms of living with other migrants but there is also a strong willingness to work and get education to get ahead, especially for the children.
|
United States42653 Posts
Surely that table has built in bias in the same way that the average lottery winner tends to have won the lottery. Most white kids are at schools that are mostly white kids because most white kids are there, it wouldn't make sense if most white kids were at schools that were mostly black, the numbers wouldn't add up. It shows that there is a degree of post code segregation which happens when schools are based on geography but the results aren't hugely dramatic or unexpected to me.
|
On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. These links don't seem to isolate illegal immigration, which it looks like he was talking about.
|
On June 09 2016 07:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. These links don't seem to isolate illegal immigration, which it looks like he was talking about. Point 9 of the EPI factsheet (first link).
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The names of CIA personnel could have been compromised not only by hackers who may have penetrated Hillary Clinton's private computer server or the State Department system, but also by the release itself of tens of thousands of her emails, security experts say.
Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, turned over to the State Department 55,000 emails from her private server that were sent or received when she was secretary of state. Some contained information that has since been deemed classified, and those were redacted for public release with notations for the reason of the censorship.
At least 47 of the emails contain the notation "B3 CIA PERS/ORG," which indicates the material referred to CIA personnel or matters related to the agency. And because both Clinton's server and the State Department systems were vulnerable to hacking, the perpetrators could have those original emails, and now the publicly released, redacted versions showing exactly which sections refer to CIA personnel.
"Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton's server," said Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who spent more than three years as an assistant secretary of the Homeland Security Department and is former legal counsel for the National Security Agency.
If so, those infiltrators would have copies of all her emails with the names not flagged as being linked to the agency.
In the process of publicly releasing the emails, however, classification experts seem to have inadvertently provided a key to anyone who has the originals. By redacting names associated with the CIA and using the "B3 CIA PERS/ORG" exemption as the reason, "Presto — the CIA names just fall off the page," Baker said.
The CIA declined to comment.
Source
|
On June 09 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 07:30 oBlade wrote:On June 09 2016 05:04 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 02:20 GGTeMpLaR wrote: If you want to pay over a hundred billion dollars in taxes on welfare for illegal immigrants every year, go for it. Immigrants (both legal and illegal) overall have a net positive impact on government finances. Also, Lord Tolkien is right on the impact of a wall. These links don't seem to isolate illegal immigration, which it looks like he was talking about. Point 9 of the EPI factsheet (first link). Note 15, where they get their "broad consensus" from, links to a 1997 study that in addition to being 20 years old also fails to really isolate illegal immigration. An interesting snippet is this:
Under our baseline assumptions, the average fiscal impact (net present value) of an immigrant with less than a high school education is -$13,000, and that for an immigrant with more than a high school education is +$198,000. My intuition is most illegals aren't highly educated. Since the EPI says that "the present value of the long-run net fiscal impact of unauthorized immigration, at all levels of government combined, is small but positive," I imagine for the impact to be small there would have to be a lot of under-educated immigrants canceling out the contributions of the higher-educated ones, and like I said, illegals are probably concentrated towards the under-educated end of the spectrum. It doesn't seem to add up, especially since they admit that the state/local impact is negative, yet claim the federal impact is positive despite that illegals for the most part don't pay federal taxes, apart from automatic deductions into Social Security (which is how Medicare is funded).
The other note, note 16, links to http://khn.org/news/immigrants-medicare-health-costs/ which only seems to talk about healthcare, and also doesn't separate legal and illegal immigration. It says "immigrants" (remember GGTeMpLaR is talking about the effect of illegals) contributed a $14 billion surplus in a year to Medicare (essentially saying "most illegals aren't old retirees). That's great. But it doesn't speak to whether illegals are a net economic plus or minus.
|
|
|
|