Tell an Australian what the argument is against building a border wall.

Here's all the polling.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Of note, is that while liberals love to try and rub our faces in "we're more educated than you peons rolling in the mud", you'll note that Trump won every income category above $50k per year.

So while they may be "more educated" with a lot of worthless degrees, they don't seem to be more successful in life.

 

Very well:

chris155au said: ↑
That's not an argument though. It doesn't matter if there was a hundred leaving every day and only a hundred entering every week. Its still a problem that needs dealt with.
Yes, it is an argument and it is not a problem worth spending the funds and resources pretending to fix.

You mean illegal labor pools. If industries have made themselves dependent on the federal crime of illegally employing an exploiting aliens, essentially turning them into slaves, then they deserve to die.
The labor pools are indeed illegal (Duh) but death is not a viable or acceptable solution, and slaves are neither paid or do so on purpose.

Of course there was a lack of people to gather. There's been no work in the industry for so long because its been taken by aliens, no one even thinks to do it anymore. Everyone has been pushed out of the job market! Did no citizens want these jobs hundreds of years ago either?
This is not even discussing the issue, it is simply biatching about it.

That's whats called collateral damage.
Call it what you will, it is reality.

Dreamers should stay.
Why?

 

Okay. Both you and I clearly have way too much time on our hands. This must now be the longest exchange on a online forum in history. I've certainly never seen two people engaged in a back and forth exchange like this online before. I must admit, you're quite an opponent! Anyway, lets go again...

Why would it need to say that? They are real statistics from a GOVERNMENT OFFICE! How are they NOT facts? Do the media outlets whose links you provided say that those non-government studies are fact?

This isn't mentioned on the 'About' page on The Heritage Foundation's website. Where did you get that from?

If you pay little attention to something that is not able to be measured, then why do you pay any attention at all to those studies which you cited? If you agree that the numbers CAN be measured in those studies, then you have to consider the potential of my scenario but you haven't even attempted to argue against it.

The studies are simply not accurate because there are no perfect measures of crimes committed by criminal aliens. And that is why I have not cited any studies which suggest the opposite.

No, that's not an argument that I'm making. I'm disputing YOUR argument, that illegal aliens commit less crime than citizens.
Even if this was true, how is it fair to equate all crime as equal? Is stealing a bag of candy the same as murder or rape?

I tried to find it on the pages that you mentioned. I wonder if you might be able to locate it for me.

An imaginary study? Again, what study are you talking about? And what letter? You could have just simply clarified what you mean by this instead of accusing me of not reading it.

So we're talking about crime committed by illegal aliens and you think that reports from a Federal Government office on illegal aliens in prison has nothing to do with the issue. Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

Those studies are FAR from being evidence. They are merely statistics.

Well I didn't say that I could prove it. I just made an informed opinion based on the fact that some illegal aliens commit crime, definitely a reasonable percentage. Therefore, if as many as possible were removed, crime would reduce, if EVEN by the smallest of margins. Would it be a crime strategy to reduce crime by 25%? No, probably not, but it would still be worth it. Potentially one less rape or one less murder. The fact is, it doesn't NEED to be proven that it could reduce crime. They're illegal, so should leave. And whatever reduction in crime comes out of it is a bonus!

Remember, every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place. It really is THAT simple.

Well of course if people reach a certain level of poverty they will be inclined to steal more and injure and murder more people tin the process. However, do you really think that by deporting, over time, a bunch of illegal aliens, the economy would shrink to THIS level, causing THIS amount of poverty? Do you really have that little faith in your great nation?

And Fox isn't?

Who has decided that Fox News is not main stream? You?

How the hell do you know that? Therefore, how in the hell could I INCLUDE something which hasn't been demonstrated to be true?

The problem was, you did seem to be making a distinction between 'corporate media' and 'right wing media.' The way you presented the 'concept' was quite hard to follow. Therefore, you can surely see why I got confused. Also, is Fox News an example of what you refer to as "Right wingnut media?"

Uh, the TV statistics which show how much air time was dedicated to it.

What does NYT have to do with CNN & MSNBC?

There were some people who got cut off air during the campaign when they started to talk negatively about Hilary.

Ah. The fallacy of the straw man argument. I was clearly making the point that they're covering it as if there IS evidence.
Of course it should be covered during the investigation. But to the extend that they cover it? Come on.

Do you not remember what you said? Let me remind you:

I responded asking you for this evidence to support your claim that they colluded. You decided to not respond to that and instead refer the the second half of my response where I mentioned the investigation. So, how can you say that they colluded?

What do you mean by pay for it?

Nope, everything you said below this I have no problem with believing could easily be true. Alot of it just makes sense.
However, it still doesn't justify them being in the country illegally. Do you think that it does justify it?

Regardless of what you think the 'tone' was, Trump still referred to some Mexican's as good people. Real racists wouldn't like this. To say that Trump called some of them good people, in order to appeal more to racists, is just mindless stupidity.

ALL foreigners?

It wasn't a Muslim ban, it was a ban to people from a list of countries which the Obama administration compiled which had the most terrorist activity. Simple.

How is breaking relations with Cuba and pulling out of the Paris Accord hurting people?

How do you know what has benefited him personally or his businesses?

He signed a presidential memorandum to withdraw on 23 January. What do you mean?

I did. Here it is again:

Here you have successfully incurred in the logical fallacy called the "fallacy of hasty generalisation." You know, someone once told me that "Incurring again and again in logical fallacies is definite sign of lack of arguments." Now I wonder who that was!

You say that they are ALL good people. How can you say that? You act as if not one single alien who has entered has been a "scum-bag creep" and we're still waiting for one to enter. Well wake up to yourself! You KNOW that isn't true! Are you really going to ignore facts?

I've already said that the dreamers should stay. And maybe the US does have a stronger economy thanks to illegal aliens, that would be a clear benefit. However, you would still be a great and powerful nation without it. And once again, it doesn't justify illegal aliens being in the country. And lets not forget, every day they remain, is another day that they have been exploited and treated as slaves. And the slave owners should also face justice.

The policy idea that you've outlined seems like a good idea. However I don't think that illegal aliens should remain in the country before this or some other solution is introduced. If they want to live and work in the US so much, then they can come back once a work program has been introduced.

You know, this whole debate started because you were providing an argument against building a border wall, which means that you think that they should continue to come. Right?

And if they have a criminal record?

They actually went around saying that their goal was not to benefit the country?

 

Ah really? Its funny, because you clearly weren't able to mount an argument against it! If my response was so "absurd" then it should have been very easy to respond to, no?

 

Although, doesn't this set of polling suggest that more Trump supporters have degrees?

 

trump appealed to the uneducated http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

 

Who said anything about illegals? Reading comprehension duuuude. What I am talking about is IMMIGRANTS being allowed into the country because employers won't offer higher wages to fill jobs. As immigrants flood the job market then wages fall. Do you understand economics?

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there are 27 MILLION LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigrants in our workforce. That's 16.9 percent of the ENTIRE WORKFORCE! The whole point of immigration laws were to PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS!

Repeat previous post.
Only when employers want to pay less money for jobs. I know people that experienced Bill Clinton opening the flood gates for foreign IT workers back in 1999. Employers complained they couldn't find "qualified" people to fill the jobs, much the same as they do now regarding STEM jobs.

My brother and a friend were in school at the time (1999) for IT skills. My brother managed to get hired just before the flood gates were fully opened. My friend was still in school and couldn't find employment at all. Before the flood gates opened, IT workers were being hired at approximately $50,000/yr. After the flood gates opened, then and since then, IT workers are paid nearly half that for entry level IT. What is happening is employers complain they can't find people, but it's only people they want to work for low wages.

Steve

 

Yes, at least whites anyway.

 

nope, trumps voters are the uneducated

 

Even CNN knows that's not true, but believe what you want.

The bulk of democrat voting comes from those who make less than $30k a year.

Which means, of course, that they paid tens of thousands of dollars for a worthless degree, if they have one.

 

I posted proof otherwise and you just saying so is meaningless

 

Yeah? What post #.

 

I aint your baby sitter son

 

So you got nothing to refute it then.

The statistics, from CNN of all sources, clearly shows that college educated whites voted at a higher percentage for Trump.

It also clearly shows that the bulk of democrat support comes from those making under $50k a year.

Which, of course, clearly indicates that democrat voters are largely either extremely young, extremely unsuccessful, or both.

 

You keep cutting pasting foolishness, proves nothing

 

You mean other than the fact that I have factual data, from a liberal source no less, and you have nothing to back up your claims other than a lot of hot air.

 

do you understand how foolish your post is....I am getting tired of posting information educated people already know. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

 

Well if you're so educated maybe you can explain why trump won every category over $50k a year.

Your college educated barristas are your primary voting bloc.

Educated, but unsuccessful in life.

 

you have the facts literally right in front of your face and you still post lies...holy carp!

 

Indeed I do.

Trump won at every income level above 50k per year.

 

Had too much time. As we were awaiting Irma. But not anymore. So I'll try to be brief and eliminate repetitiveness.

No they're not. They are letters from a Government Office quoting statistics for which the source is only generally stated. And the letter respond to some unknown inquiry that we can only infer. But are obviously two l different topics which the Heritage Foundation arbitrarily crams them together as if they were referencing the same population.

Read them again. The letters themselves state the limitations. Look for key phrases like "We then analyzed selected data" or any other limitations expressly stated in the reports. Bottom line: the letters were meant to answer what the letters answer. And nothing else. The numbers are most definitely not meant to be taken literally for further research. And much less to combine with each other. And the limitations are even stated on the letters themselves

Their webpage description "The Heritage Foundation has long been the leader of the conservative movement..."

Your question is nonsense. That's the purpose of Science: to infer data that cannot be observed from data that can be observed. That's what Science does. All serious research plus all anecdotal evidence concurs: Illegal aliens commit less crimes than the general population.

Wrong! The studies are accurate. They are just not perfect.

But I believe that now I understand your error. You are confusing what these studies prove. The purpose of these studies is not to determine the number of crimes committed by criminal aliens. It's only to determine if they are higher, lower or the same as the general population. The unanimous conclusion is that they are lower. That should clarify a large part of you response. So we can skip that.

Follow the sources quoted in your study. It's just a damn letter! What I presented was research.

We would lose 5% of our workforce (as estimated by Pew Research). Economy would lose $5 trillion over 10 years But it will shrink Any level it shrinks, crime increases. State and Federal government would lose $11.6 billion per year in Taxes. The Social Security fund would lose billions ($13 billion in 2010) GDP would decrease by 2.4 percent, putting us very near to a Recession. Produce price would skyrocket forcing small stores, and some restaurants out of business...

Absolutely. It would needlessly shrink to THIS level.

http://www.mcall.com/business/getsm...rants-cost-the-us-economy-20170222-story.html

Fox News did.

The main reason this discussion is getting so long is that we are debated things that are not even in dispute here. I understand you are in Australia. Ask any Fox viewer if they consider Fox Main Strream Media.

It's MSM

There is evidence.

Some examples: Trump Jr's constant changing his story on that Trump Tower meeting. More and more campaign operatives having been found attending that meeting... President Trump himself obstructing the investigation....

You decided to not respond to that and instead refer the the second half of my response where I mentioned the investigation. So, how can you say that they colluded?

I mean what I said. They pay for Social Security benefits, but rarely receive any. Nor have any expectation to receive any. Only way to receive them would be to become legal residents. Relatively few do. Nevertheless, as I said, in 2010 alone they paid $13 billion dollars according to SSA.

Yes.

Not only would they. They did. They loved it. It's the most racist thing he could have said.

Probably excluding all who can make money for him.

He said it was a Muslim ban. His campaign said it was a Muslim ban. They are definitely not the countries with most terrorist activity. The country that has produces the most terrorists is Saudi Arabia which wasn't included in the list.

Is that a joke? Not funny. Sorry...

His businesses are public record. At least his legal ones.

Demagoguery. TPP didn't exist on January 23.

Your own phrase should have given you a hint. I mean a "presidential memorandum"? That's like gathering the press to watch him enter an appointment in his calendar.

Fake precision Fallacy (using a negligible difference in data to draw incorrect inferences.) Whoever told you that definitely knew you well...

Again: Fake precision Fallacy. There is absolutely zero evidence that the number that are "not good people who are seeking a better future for themselves and/or their family" is of any significance.

Yes. Albeit with a shrunk economy and consequentially more crime.

What are you talking about? They come back from where?

No. My argument is that a Wall won't stop them.

If the commit a Felony they are deported.

They said that their main goal was to make Obama a one-term President. That was during the middle of the greatest depression this country has had since 1929 and Unemployment rapidly approaching 10%[/QUOTE]

 

Maybe not, but that's a separate argument. Its possible to have the opinion that illegal aliens are a problem but NOT a problem worth spending a certain amount of funds and resources on.
However, originally, you just said that they were not a problem. Do you actually think that they're not a problem at all?

What do you mean by death is not a viable solution? Who's dying?

That's why the term 'modern slavery' exists. It generally refers to inhumane working conditions. By your definition, if someone got paid a dollar a year, it would not be slavery because they're getting paid.

How was I not discussing the issue when I was giving a reason as to why crops went unharvested due to a lack of people to gather as you said?

Biatching? Seriously?

Yeah, of course its reality.

Dreamers should stay because they shouldn't have to pay for incompetence of the government which, due to a lack of proper immigration programs, led to them entering illegally and didn't deport them sooner. As a result, the US is all they know and their lives are built around it. They didn't choose to enter, their parents did and If it wasn't for the incompetence of the government, they would have either entered the US legally with their parents through an immigration program, or grown up and made a life for themselves back in Mexico. Also, given that they have grown up in the US, they pose no more criminal threat than any US citizen, because they might as well be citizens themselves.

 

I'd be surprised if there was a post @vman12!

 

I said illegal wages, not illegal aliens which I assume is what you mean by "illegals." I thought that when you talked about IT employers paying people "low wages" you meant the same sort of wages which aliens are paid who work in the fields or whatever. However, I guess you mean low wages, but not illegally low.

Before Clinton opened the flood gates for foreign IT workers, were employers complaining? Or was it only after? It seemed that you were saying that they were complaining as a result of what Clinton did.

 

I see...so instead of making the kids suffer by deporting them, we make them suffer by deporting their family. Who is going to guide and support them now?
Should we create a "Dreamer Welfare Fund" for these new refugees?