[honk]

Being kicked out of a baseball game is totally comparable to being deported.

[Tom Bishop]

Being kicked out of a baseball game is totally comparable to being deported.

If a father is hiding the the US for 20 years and gets found he will be deported. What is different about deporting his kid too? They both "built a life" here, but only one of them gets deported?

We live in a society of laws, and there is a group of people who would rather circumvent that law rather than get their ideas adopted in a democratic fashion. There was nothing legal about how DACA was enacted. Amnesty laws are not passed with a memo to the DHS.

[garygreen]

Which one is that, in your view?

the latter.  i think shipping people to mexico is a giant waste of money.

obama is illegal

then the badass move would've been to go to congress with a bill in hand.  like "hey here's this bill that maintains the status quo because dreamers are cool and stuff.  vote for this shit.  i'll sign the bill and rescind the obama memo with the same goddamn pen.  later taters."

[Roundy]

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now.

[Lord Dave]

Also, shouldn't we be focusing on the bad hombres?  The gang members?  The dangerous people?


I mean, for every nice dreamer we deport, thats one criminal we can't deport because that dreamer has his seat on the bus/plane/train.  Then again, don't we incarcerate first, letting them stay in our prison until their sentence is up, then deporting them?  Or do we let them go home free men and women?

[Tom Bishop]

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now.

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

[Lord Dave]

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now.

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

Why are you constantly equating private areas with a country?

You should use a public area.

"A parent and a kid sneak into a school basket ball game.  When the dad tried to play too, he was escorted out.  The kid was allowed to stay."

"A burglar and his son broke into city hall because paperwork was a job so they figured they'd try it.  They were caught and the father went to jail.  The son, being a minor, was released without being charged."

[Tom Bishop]

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now.

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

Why are you constantly equating private areas with a country?

You should use a public area.

"A parent and a kid sneak into a school basket ball game.  When the dad tried to play too, he was escorted out.  The kid was allowed to stay."

"A burglar and his son broke into city hall because paperwork was a job so they figured they'd try it.  They were caught and the father went to jail.  The son, being a minor, was released without being charged."

My example illustrates that we are paying for their presence here, and we should have no such obligation. If you are not willing to raise a criminal's son, how can you demand that others do?

[Roundy]

Ecch, just the usual empty rhetoric and parroting of GOP talking points from Tom. I guess I shouldn't expect anything better by now.

Someone broke into your house with their child and the robber was caught. Now you have the legal responsibility to take care of the child.

This burglar's son has dreams of college too. Have you saved up enough? Your kids can get college loans and pay them over the next 20 years. Just make sure the robber's son gets an education, because reasons.

You really don't see how ridiculous an analogy this is?

I mean, the premise doesn't even make sense.

That you have to resort to using such a ridiculous analogy is all anyone needs to see to recognize that you don't have a good point to make.

Anyway, if I raised the child and came to see him as my own, yeah, I would feel responsible for him, same as any other adopted child, so... yeah.

[Tom Bishop]

You really don't see how ridiculous an analogy this is?

I mean, the premise doesn't even make sense.

That you have to resort to using such a ridiculous analogy is all anyone needs to see to recognize that you don't have a good point to make.

Anyway, if I raised the child and came to see him as my own, yeah, I would feel responsible for him, same as any other adopted child, so... yeah.

Why am I responsible for adopting the children of criminals who enter the united states illegally?

Society as a whole has voted that no, we are not responsible for that. We have already decided that we are not responsible through democracy. You are actively trying to undermine the law. If you want change then you need to cast your vote and walk away. The law is not going to change through your tears.

[Rama Set]

The US elected democratic representatives, they didn't vote on this issue as a whole. You should stop the political platitudes and maybe make an actual cohesive argument.

[Roundy]

You really don't see how ridiculous an analogy this is?

I mean, the premise doesn't even make sense.

That you have to resort to using such a ridiculous analogy is all anyone needs to see to recognize that you don't have a good point to make.

Anyway, if I raised the child and came to see him as my own, yeah, I would feel responsible for him, same as any other adopted child, so... yeah.

Why am I responsible for adopting the children of criminals who enter the united states illegally?

Society as a whole has voted that no, we are not responsible for that. We have already decided that we are not responsible through democracy. You are actively trying to undermine the law. If you want change then you need to cast your vote and walk away. The law is not going to change through your tears.

Because the US has never adopted immigrant-friendly laws before? Actually if you stretch your analogy further, you shouldn't be responsible for anybody else, whether illegal immigrants, their children, or natural-born Americans. But you are, aren't you? I mean, you're a Republican, so I'm sure you don't agree with it, but you're paying for poor people on welfare, you're paying for public schools for your community, you're paying for medical care for the elderly... despite living in a democracy!! Maybe one doesn't really have to do with the other?

If the law is going to change (and I agree it should be done properly, which is why I don't count this as among the worst things Trump has done), it will be done legally through Congress. And the Dreamers have enough support on both sides of the aisle that the law changing is a distinct possibility. So sorry about your luck, I guess. Our democratically elected leaders might just be more compassionate than you.

[garygreen]

society has already decided that children shouldn't be held to the same legal standards as adults, and we already spend your money caring for children with criminal/negligent parents.  sors m8.

this is a super simple opportunity-cost to work out.  a bunch of people are here.  finding them and deporting them is expensive.  integrating them is also expensive.  the only "zero cost" option is to ignore them.

deporting them yields no return; people in mexico don't contribute to our gdp.  integrating them returns whatever they contribute to our gdp.  the latter option is an investment.  the former is just lighting money on fire.

crying and whining about but...but...but it's not fair! is dumb.

[Roundy]

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

[Lord Dave]

Most corrupt son of a bitch in fucking politics!


http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/national/article_e3ab9868-2561-5c92-9465-5a3a2882b721.html

The Trump family business doubled the initiation fee to $200,000 once it became clear that Mar-a-Lago would become the unofficial Winter White House,

Knew that but now I know it's TRUMP'S FAMILY that did it, not just an independent business they happen to own through subsidiaries.

An AP investigation last year showed Trump received a $17 million insurance payment for Mar-a-Lago damage in 2005 after hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma hit in two years, but he said in an unrelated lawsuit deposition in 2007 that he didn't know how much was spent on repairs. He conceded to pocketing some of the money.
Senecal told the AP the roof lost some tiles and some trees were flattened. Town of Palm Beach records showed no permits were issued for major repairs during that period.

Here's the AP news article that didn't make it into the Mainstream Media. 

https://apnews.com/1fefeef4a4e84fa4af6441f4b6d221f0

Literal fucking insurance fraud!


I hope he loses the whole fucking place.  He won't, sadly, but god damn, I expect him to collect insurance money anyway.  Fund his fucking campaign.

[Tom Bishop]

Because the US has never adopted immigrant-friendly laws before? Actually if you stretch your analogy further, you shouldn't be responsible for anybody else, whether illegal immigrants, their children, or natural-born Americans. But you are, aren't you? I mean, you're a Republican, so I'm sure you don't agree with it, but you're paying for poor people on welfare, you're paying for public schools for your community, you're paying for medical care for the elderly... despite living in a democracy!! Maybe one doesn't really have to do with the other?

Here is a nice transcript for you courtesy of CNN with Hillary Clinton in 2014:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/17/se.01.html

AMANPOUR: Hard choice -- let them stay in the United States or send them back?

CLINTON: Well, two quick points. One, the numbers are increasing dramatically. And the main reason I believe why that's happening is that the violence in certain of those Central American countries is increasing dramatically. And there is not sufficient law enforcement or will on the part of the governments of those countries to try to deal with this exponential increase in violence, drug trafficking, the drug cartels, and many children are fleeing from that violence.

AMANPOUR: Should they be able to stay here? It's safer.

CLINTON: Well -- it may be safer but that's not the answer. I do not --

AMANPOUR: Should they be sent back?

CLINTON: Well, first of all, we have to provide the best emergency care we can provide. We have children 5 and 6 years old who have come up from Central America. We need to do more to provide border security in southern Mexico.

AMANPOUR: So, you're saying they should be sent back now?

CLINTON: Well, they should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back. But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families. And just as Vice President Biden is arguing today in Central America, we've got to do more. I started this when I was secretary to deal with the violence in this region to deal with border security.
But we have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. So, we don't want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey.

[Tom Bishop]

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Your argument of "b-b-but illegals pay taxes" is in error.  The  Congressional Budget Office states "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

See: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

[Rama Set]

Talking about HRC in 2017

Give it up man.  She lost and no one cares anymore but you.

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Your argument of "b-b-but illegals pay taxes" is in error.

No it isn't, you actually go on to agree with that statement.

  The  Congressional Budget Office states "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

See: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

The same quote goes on to say that their impact is "most likely modest".  It also does nothing to say if the offset by immigrants vary substantially from those of citizens.  It could very well be that they do not add any more incremental burden than a citizen.  That aside, that is not even really the argument being made.  The argument being made is that not deporting these people costs incrementally less than deporting them.

[Roundy]

Also I feel it necessary to point out that your rhetoric is ignoring the point you were arguing against, which is that keeping the Dreamers will result in more money going to the government in the form of taxes. So there's that. This is why I don't usually bother with you.

Your argument of "b-b-but illegals pay taxes" is in error.  The  Congressional Budget Office states "the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants."

See: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/12-6-immigration.pdf

Well it's about time you actually try. I mean this report is misleading and irrelevant to the current discussion, but I applaud the effort of trying to find something in the real world that supports your worldview. That it doesn't actually might not even be your fault. I doubt it would surprise anybody if you didn't even read the prologue of the thing, where it flatly states that it is an unreliable indicator of the actual financial impact on state and local budgets, much less 4 pages in, where it explains why; an explanation that happens to go to the heart of the discussion we're having. The report ignores the long term, which means it says nothing about the swell of Dreamers entering the workforce at a time when American employers will need their numbers. And of course it only addresses state and local taxes and spending at those levels. The report even says that there aren't a lot of programs at the federal level that directly benefit illegals like there are at state and local levels. What does that suggest about the federal taxes they are generating?

And as Rama Set pointed out the net effect is modest. Apparently they have no way of knowing for sure how modest, but the writers of your report seem confident that the difference is negligable.

But, hey, you're trying. Good for you. The post about Hillary means nothing, that she is out of touch is nothing new and her opinion is entirely irrelevant to current political discourse.

[Lord Dave]

Once again, Trump's administration confirms Obama and the Democrats were right.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-admin-charges-irs-actions-conservatives-49707991

So that's two "OMG this person should be in jail cause they're not Republicans!" Trump has basically let slide.  The first being Hillary Clinton.