The Historic Results of President Donald J. Trump’s First Two Years in Office

The scholars agree that immigrants, even illegals, are a net positive on the economy.

But to be fair, their impact depends on your current location in the economic social ladder. If you are rich, then immigrants, even illegals, are a net positive. If you are poor and lack a formal education, then immigrants are a net negative.

 

I spent years working as a Paramedic in a sanctuary city, and now practice medicine in a sanctuary state.

Im forced to pay for illegal immigrant sex changes.

They are a net drain. The first citizen killed by an illegal proved that.

 

That explains about 60% of the posts on this forum in 1 sentence.... although I would have gone with poor and/or lack a formal education.... doesn't always go hand in hand...

 

Uh...you never responded to my post where I explicitly discredited multiple accomplishments*

*according to Trump.

Post #7 if you need help.

 

Because you didn't, so there was nothing worthy of a response.

 

Some federal works may bitch, that's human nature but they are not leaving their jobs are they. It is the leftist media and certain do nothing D politicians who claim the sky is falling.

You need to rephrase the above. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

 

Scholars lie like rugs. Surely you know that.

 

Immigrants with green cards pay taxes and are therefore eligible to receive entitlements. They very well can be net positive depending on education, income, etc.
Illegals, no way.

 

Why when people talk about illegals, a liberal tries to shift it to immigrants. Not the same thing.

 

That response is pathetic and only worthy of someone intentionally trying to troll.

 

Your right it is historic, it shows that this is the worse president in US history and everyone who voted for him is a part of it.

 

You are the one who claimed most. If you had said "some agree," I would not have challenged you.

I left it intentionally vague, but it should have been clear that I was referenced the military. That is a federal agency which Trump made much larger despite the fact that it is already larger than the military of the next seven countries combined.

 

I already have, if you'd bother to read what I posted.

 

Surely you know that your opinion on the matter means no more than dog **** to me, right?

 

Do you have a mirror at home, if you look in it you will see you are talking about yourself.

 

Illegals still pay taxes, like sales tax and property tax. They still spend their money within local communities. They still perform jobs that rich people do not wish to perform.

So yes, they are still a net positive.

 

I recognize that there are many trumpettes who would love to expand the definition of illegal immigrants to include almost all immigrants.

 

They wire most of what they make here back to their home countries and use government resources, hospitals, sometimes schools, etc. for free. They are not net positive. Even most democrats agree on that.

 

How are they "lying"? Be specific and provide some evidence.

Trump lies constantly. I guess we shouldn't believe anything he says, too.

 

The word "most" requires more than 50%. And I do not see any evidence to support that illegals send more than 50% of their money to home countries or that more than 50% of Democrats agree that illegal immigrants are a net negative.

 

Does Trump lie like a rug?

 

Here is a source that says $445 billion was remitted in 2017. If you don't like the word most then change it to Many.

No matter what, I believe it would be fair to say that if I say black you will say white.

So who is your fav: Chuck or Nancy?

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/06...ld-sent-445-billion-back-their-home-countries

 

You claimed "Presidents don't have much impact on the economy" and then followed it up with an NPR link (and we know how biased they are) which tried to give credit to Obama for the economy. Which is exactly what my post said: "It's kind of funny that nobody can discredit Trump's accomplishments, so they try to shift the credit to Obama instead."

 

So, in other words, you didn't read the link or my post, in which I clearly explained that the link didn't address one of my points, which was that Presidents don't impact the economy too much.

Which is obvious by your uninformed post.

Tell you what, if this is what passes for "discussion" with you, don't bother.

Danke, my untutored chum.