Obama On Immigration Reform: 'Let's Go Get It Done'

pitiful dodge..........afraid to anwser the question?
No, I have it right:
Aiding and abetting generally means to somehow assist in the commission of a crime, or to be an accomplice. It involves a plan to commit a crime or to commit acts, the probable consequences of which are criminal.

An accomplice may assist or encourage the main offender with the same intent to have the crime committed, but does not necessarily have to be present when the crime is actually committed. However, without sharing the criminal intent, one who is merely present when a crime occurs and stands by silently is not an accomplice, regardless of the harm that could've been prevented if he/she had acted.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/aiding-and-abetting/
but that's not what I asked......why so defensive?
BTW, I said nothing about the military....................but I think they are the government's armed forces not sure, but think you'll let me know if I got it wrong and it's a bit off topic

- - - Updated - - -

a sincere thank you. Now the playing field is level

 

you're over 250 years old? easy enough in here to say such things that require absolutely no proof

 

I know they're not contemplating it. They're DOING it. The Obama administration is already "throwing these people out" , with 409,849 deportations in 2012. They're just not doing it enough.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/21/record-2012-deportations/1785725/

 

Why not just hIre AMERICANS ? (who don't send their wages$$ overseas, and out of the US economy)

 

Wash opinion or not doesn't change the fact they are a net negative to GDP.

It actually is, you are confusing what they claim as benefiting the consumer. The infinitesimal amount they may benefit the consumer is not enough to be a positive effect on the economy to make up the difference in their costs overall.

It most certainly can, Hanson shows it, they are a net negative to GDP, plain and simple.

No, I simply stated economists, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry, most of which are advocates one way or the other, thus their opinion holds very little if any credibility.

No, she is a Professor of Law, not of Economics, her opinion is nothing more than that of an advocate based on emotion. C'mon do some basic (*)(*)(*)(*)ing research here. http://works.bepress.com/francine_lipman/

All TAX classes, nothing about economics. Hell I went to school at UC Davis while she was there, She knows nothing of actual economics.

Are illegals only from Central, South American or Caribbean countries? Are you claiming Chile isn't a South American Country? Are you limiting where illegals come from now? Do you know what a PRUCOL alien is? Do you understand that they can receive SS benefits even though they are here illegally? Do you really know much about this topic? http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/02/20/illegal-aliens-eligible-for-social-security-benefits/

Once again you fail to comprehend what economists mean when they say there is a benefit to the overall economy. All they mean is that they lower the cost of some product that keeps the cost lower than it would be otherwise.

My own admissions of what exactly? Everything I have stated is actuality and fact, your links even agree with me. Please don't attempt to use your failed understanding of what economists claim as a benefit in meaning they are a net positive to the US overall, when they are not. You've tried to dismiss their overall negativity as an infinitesimal negative amount to GDP. No matter how you slice it they are a NEGATIVE to GDP and cost the US more than they contribute overall.

 

You were the one claiming you helped illegals, I merely qualified what an illegal was, an EWI.

A person that was here on a visa and over stayed becomes out-of-status and is not considered to be an illegal as you claimed. You might try phrasing your claims correctly as so far they make you ignorant to what you are saying. I suggest a) you use terms correctly, b) don't portend to be something you really aren't, c) attempt comprehension before making yourself the fool.

You're no Master, nor have I committed any need to kill myself at the behest of your ignorance. You fail in basic comprehension and basic understanding of immigration law. Don't blame me for your stupidity.

 

Those juvenile criminals must get a waiver prior to being accepted. Some can get a waiver, some can't. Its called the Criminal History Waiver. There are different requirements based on criteria.

Again, you show ignorance of which you claim.

 

No different result expected. Only "result" is information being communicated. And the more it's posted, the more it's communicated.

And NO, everyone does not have a bias. A bias comes from some personal interest in an issue. Like owning a business employing illegal aliens, or holding stock in one. Simple acquisition of knowledge does not lead to a bias. It could create a perfectly UNbiased, objective view.

 

Bill Clinton said he thinks Obama should stand behind the commitment he made the people on Obama care. Shouldn't he also stand behind the commitment made to us on immigration? Never again will they ask us for citizenship for illegals.

 

Stttreeeetttttcccchhhhh. Watching your contortions is most amusing.

Oh my. The rant of a bigot, kernels of truth blown out of all proportion. Where to start?

Okay first the humongous problem of "anchor babies". I realize its hard to accept actual facts when you are so entrenched. I notice you never ever use any sources to back up any of your claims. can't say that I can accept your biased opinions as authoratative.


http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/08/11/unauthorized-immigrants-and-their-us-born-children/



Seems you also are fully prepared to completely distort the meaning of federal government "entitlements".

Well nothing like mixing two different ideas.
Mexican remittances are less than 6% of the total current account deficit and certainly NOT a significant factor.

If you believe for a moment that whatever welfare an immigrant gets is sent out of the country, you have a most peculiar perspective on poverty. those remittances come from employment, not welfare.

Since with the AA we are talking about legal immigrants and your only grudge here is with the non-white immigrants I fail to see how this is at all relevant. Naturally you can pass yourself off a white regardless of your heritage so I am confident you didn't benefit at all from the AA. Like I said AA has to do with integration not immigration.

You really should refer to what economists actuall say about these issues instead of relying on simplistic logic that fails to take into account a considerable number of criteria and consideration that contribute to the overal macroeconomic effects. Wage reductions for the most part are confined to a select few industry and at the lowest end of the pay scale. And I agree it does seriously effect some "american workers". These effects on the other hand are compensated for by lower product prices for commodities like food.

It does not negate the fact that the illegal immigrants are not the cause of congestion and overcrowding. this is a spurious argument of little value since you cannot substantiate it with actual facts, just your own anecdotal observations. Again, hardly definitive.

As for your contention that all immigrants should go. chacun son gout.

How wonderfully niave. do you think for a moment that urban planners, transportation planners, government and business planners do not plan to accomodate growth? Do you think that they ignore the influx of immigrants - both legal and illegal? do you think they don't study demographic trends and birth rates and population expansion?

I am not surprised that you can only absorb a certain level of complexity especially when you rely solely on your own limited knowledge base and appear not to be the least bit interested in actually understanding what the experts have to say.

right - static culture is the best culture. Naturally decadence hasn't destroyed any empires in history, has it? Monoculture is like inbreeding, sooner or later it starts generating handicaps and destructive mutations.

what the hell are you talking about? Last time I looked the US was NOT a marxist paradise.
The US government doesnt buy food, or gas (strategic reserve not withstanding) or any other resource or commodity. You are aware how us capitalism works aren't you? Ever heard of volume discounts and buying power leverage that comes with increased volume purchasing and futures purchasing etc.? Unreal.

well I suppose I could regale you with a list of your simplistic logic, unsubstantiated accusations, reluctance to reference any professional analysis or opinion, and what appears to be plain ignorance, but its useless.

Again for some strange reason you cannot grasp that political debate is personal pursuit that enables me to expand my knowledge base and stimulates my intellect.

I live in Toronto - home of the crack smoking alcholic embarssment of a mayor.

I realize this might come as a complete shock to an isolationist such as yourself, but what happens in America has impact in Canada. Canada also has an Illegal immigration problem, a refugee problem and a broken immigration system. Understanding the issues and remedies discussed in America are relevant to our own solutions. I don't think someone as parochial as you (a common enough trait in america) actually realizes let alone understand the intimate connections between our two countries.

twist and shout.

Intelligent posters sure as hell ain't buying what you are selling, but I am sure that fact has completely escaped you.

 

I guess you don't actually understand what "wash" means. If you accept Hanson's estimate of gdp impact, you must also accept that in his estimation it is so insignificant as be effectively neutral.

Which is why I posted the SNL skit. Floor wax/dessert topping - Stop you're both right.

I don't understand why you refuse to admit that the majority of economists agree on. the majority agree (including hanson) that the overall economic effects of illegal immigration are either neutral (a wash) or very slightly positive. Your insistence on a single data point (GDP) does not take into account that lower prices LOWERS the gdp. GDP is NOT the sole measurement to assess economic impact as you appear to believe. Very odd gap in your understanding of the issues.

see above

And yet I showed you a link to the Wall Street Journal survey of 46 prominent ecoomists in which 94% agreed with the statement that illegal immigration overall had a slightly positive effect. Those opinions do have crediblity and you hardly call the WSJ a bastion of liberal thinking.

If she isn't a professor of economics then calling her one in the article I quoted was an error. Naturally taxes have nothing at all to do with economics.

Of course not, but the number of illegal immigrants from non-latino countries is miniscule in comparision.
Mea culpa, I missed chile on that list.

Actually I was not aware of PRUCOL. I am now. thanks.
I believe the Bush adminstration draft legislation on SS payments to mexican citizens it mentioned was not enacted.

Seems PRUCOL is a step above illegal status.

No, I absolutely understand what they mean when they say there is a benefit to the overall economy. Its macro economics and lower costs of some products is a net benefit to consumers and the economy.

I am stunned that you insist on this false interpretation of what economists conclude. You must be aware that lower prices for goods and services (especially commodities) has a negative impact on gdp. Your insistence on gdp being the sole measure is equivalent to cherry picking. These economists AGREE that they have either a neutral or small POSTIVE impact on the economy.
Its pretty damn clear.

So, can explain to me why you think lower costs of goods and services doesn't lower gdp?

 

Unfortunately quantity does not ensure quality and in this forum it does not make for a wider audience. so repetition only appeases your inability to get beyond your own opinion - as informed or uninformed it may be.

You'd get a serious argument from many psychologists, neurologists, anthropologists, physicists and philosphers regarding the existence of pure objectivity in human thought/perception. Shroedinger's Cat.

 

Oh my, kernels of truth blown out of all proportion. Where to start?

Being dismissive of the fact that they are a negative by calling it a wash, is just that, dismissive.

No, Hanson says they are a negative, he opines it is close enough to zero to be a wash. That does not negate the fact that they are a negative at the macro level. What 96% of those economists agreed on was a micro level

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-fore-0406_frameset.html

This is what those economists beleive.

You can believe in the tooth fairy, but does that make the tooth fairy real?

You never gave the link, you gave a quote. That link says that 96% of those surveyed, believe illegals have benefited the economy. Not that they are a positive effect overall. Don't confuse a believed benefit to the economy with the effect of negating the overall loss to GDP. You are confusing Micro (WSJ link) with Macro (Hanson) economics here.

Tax Law Professors are not economists. The link you provided didn't call her an economist, you simply called her one because of the school she teaches at having the word economics in it. You attempted to change the meaning of words now more than once to justify your claims.

Seems there are many things you aren't aware of on this particular topic.

Correct the TA with Mexico never went into effect.

Its not a step above illegal, they are still illegal, it is simply the BIA or IJ negating their removal based on hardship and granting certain benefits due to that. They could still be deported based on criminal violations that require deportation.

Except you fail to understand the word believe that they use. Its Micro economics, not Macro.

Im stunned you miss the word believe and then conclude they are a benefit at the Macro level. This claim of yours shows you a) don't understand/comprehend what these economists are saying, and b) you have no understanding of economics.

What's pretty damned clear is your inability to correctly interpret that question as made by the WSJ and the answers given.

It is assumed it does, there is no empirical proof that it has. Many field workers make much more than minimum wage, or suppress field worker wages. Illegals working in other industries may lower wages, but again there is no empirical proof that the end cost of the good or service is lowered, its all assumed.

 

just a firecracker in the firepit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/m...grants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

 

Good chance to change the momentum for conservatives. Yeah, let's do this. The American people are fed up with the lies about immigration. We can't drive past any construction job site without seeing illegals doing Americans' work. I propose jail time for employers that hire them. I think it's the only way to stop it. Of course, no legislation at all will be passed for the next few years anyway. Lame duck all the way.

 

Kaboooooooooom! Those numbers are simply estimates, there is no actual hard data to prove them. They could be lower, they could be higher.

 

let's not tell them that..they'll really go KABOOOOOOoooom

 

. first of all ,u only listed the disadvantages of unauthorized immigrants regardless of trying to tackle the problem seriously.What is your suggestion for the current government to handle this threat since there is no apparent solutions. Second ,illegal immigrants themselves struggle hard to gain the basic necessities of live ,even some of them couldnt have access to a decent shelter or food. finally,convince us to deny basic human rights for illegal immigrants if our government failed in controlling their borders

 

In the 4th line of this pile of fierce foolishness, is another one of your many LIES. Interesting how you object to being called a "liar", and then simply proceed to toss lies around like confetti. You said THIS >> "I notice you never ever use any sources to back up any of your claims." Yeah ? And what I notice is, you lie a lot. "Never use any sources" ? In THIS THREAD I've used these >>>
.
Post #502 >> Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed

Post # 510 >> http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

Post # 598 >> http://www.examiner.com/article/as-...-send-even-more-money-back-home#ixzz1LXcxZZiR

Post # 598 >> http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-534885.html

Post # 598 >> http://mop-jdh.blogspot.com/2006/04/mexicos-second-largest-source-of.html

Post # 607 >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/21/record-2012-deportations/1785725/

Why anybody would grant an ounce of credibility to you, I'll never know.

 

1. I have many times in this forum listed solutions including IN THIS THREAD. Try reading it.
In Post # 499, I said THIS >>>

"So what actually should be done about this then ? I would propose the following:

We should give Carlos Slim and all the rest of his plutocrat rat pack 3 months to break up the monopolies, and initiate reforms that would open Mexico's economy to Mexican small business entrepreneurs, who then could hire millions of Mexicans to good jobs. This would also create some badly needed respect for Mexican authority, and help to spur public cooperation in stamping out the drug gangs.

This would have to be backed up by a stern warning that non-cooperation would result in US military action against Mexico which would likely result in the complete conquest of Mexico, and establishment of it as a US territory or state, under full US control. A buildup of US military along the Mexican border including fleets of US warships along both Mexican coasts would be in order as well, to give teeth to the demand.

On the US side, the 14th amendment should be revised to abolish birth citizenship. The Mexican border double fence (mandated by the 2006 Secure Fence Act) should be fully built, as it was supposed to have been done by now. And President Obama's joking remark about adding a moat filled with alligators, wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Congress, with tax increases on the US employee super rich (which 3/4 of the American people support), should hire thousands of new ICE agents, CBP officers, immigration court officials, and build more immigration jails, and engage in a mass deportation program, which can easily be done as long as the will and resources are allocated to it.

This should also include a crackdown of illegal employers of illegal aliens, with arrests based on the 1986 IRCA law, as well as arrests of US mayors (starting with Michael Bloomberg of New York) and city councilmembers passing illegal sanctuary laws, and illegally giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. In addition, vested interest pro-immigration groups like the US Democratic Party, many churches, unions, and ethnocentrist organizations like La Raza, LULAC, MALDEF, et al should be investigated for their roles, and held accountable for any/all illegal activities on their parts."


2. The struggles of illegal aliens is THEIR COUNTRIES' problem, not that of the American people.

3. I'd say illegal aliens have ONE basic human right > to leave. And just because the US fails to control its border does not give a foreigner the right to break our laws, and commit the CRIMINAL act of entering the US illegally. If you leave your front door open, do you think that gives your neighbor the right to enter your home, and raid your refrigerator ?

 

round every last one of up and send them home. Stop allowing them access to public services. No medical and no anchor babies. They'll want to leave soon enough. Of course we could ship whoever wants to go, to Australia

 

I wouldn't hold much of what Adam Davidson claims in his articles to be acceptable. EXAMPLE:

Illegals do not pay $1400 to have an ITIN.

Davidson is nothing more than a hack who lies about most of his BS.

 

Then speak to Hanson. the economist you continually quote.

Nothing like cherry picking and applying your own interpretation to a professional's clearly stated opinion. Is there some issue with your semantic processor?

Once again you appear to feel that what the majority of economists "believe" is to be discounted. In this case, it is not belief without evidence and analysis.

Are you seriously attempting to equate the professional opinion of economists whose focus is the study and analysis of the economy and its dynamics with a churlish belief in a supernatural mythic being? Hardly worthy of you.

I most certainly did, you just didnt' scroll down to see it in the procon link. (hint: its on the side of PRO). You continue to insist the Hanson concludes a negative effect, when he quite clearly believes that his computed 7/100ths of 1% of GDP weighed against the benefits of lower prices, labour mobilty, etc is inconsequential. Amazingly tenacious in the face of clear facts, if nothing else.

Yes, I mistakenly assumed that when a person is described as a PROFESSOR of law and economics, the author of the article actually got her title correct. It is not me that is attempting to change the meaning of words to justify my claims, I quoted directly from the article. I even agreed when you posted her CV that it was a mistake. But for some reason you ignore thos FACTs

Yes, I am always open to learning and I thank you for making me aware of this. For instance I learned that PRUCOL status illegals do not qualify for all "welfare" programs and to obtain SSI they must have been resident before 96 and have paid their taxes. Here's a handy guide to what they are actually eligible for in NY.

http://publicadvocategotbaum.com/documents/PA002ImmigrantGuidev11.pdf

Okay I won't mince words.
I meant that a) they are government registered b) entitled to some assistance programs c) can legally work and pay taxes d) won't get hassled or put thru deportation without substantive cause.
I recognize that they are still illegal. In fact, the link I provided from usaborderpatrol clearly states that.

I think in this instance its you that fails to understand the meaning in context of the word "believe". AstroPhysicists "believe" that the big bang occurred. Biologists, anthropologists, archeologist all "believe" in evolution. Throughout the world of science and academia, professionals "believe". The fact that this "belief" is as definitive as possible based on research, analysis, review seems absolutely lost on you. Next you'll be saying that a preacher's belief in jesus walking on water is the same as a scientists belief in the four forces.

Easily accused and totally wrong. We appear to be stunning each other.
I am well aware of the difference in micro and macro economics and apologize for the crude statement. On a macro level lower prices negatively effect gdp as I have repeatedly stated. On a micro level, lower prices directly benefit consumers, labour mobility directly effects producers, etc. When taking both into account (they are intradependent as we both know), the net effect is neutral to a small positive. That is a seriously informed scientific opinion by professionals, ergo "belief".

He said without a trace of irony.

Wait one.
You say it is assumptive that lower wages and costs do not depress GDP? You do know how gdp is calculated don't you?

You say its merely assumptive that lower wages (due to illegal labour or high unemployment or any other wage depressing reason) do not lower the cost of goods in a competitive free marketplace?
I suppose one could also claim that the economic benefits of free markets is merely assumptive with no empirical evidence - but they'd be fools.

 

In this little piece of underhandedness you carefully edited a definition of a native american "nation" in a disengenous attempt apply it all nations in direct contradiction to actual definition of a nation. so strike one for you credibility.

I forgot about this ONE. My apologies, but you might just want to read the conclusions.

 

Look to your signature line and remember 1986. It will never, ever, ever happen. All you can do is make it as uncomfortable to be living illegally in the USA (in the shadows, so to speak) as possible to limit illegal immigration.