Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

"Child Refugees: The Hispanic Tribal Guide" commentary thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Child Refugees: The Hispanic Tribal Guide" commentary thread

    Since I can't comment in Turdacus's thread I'll comment here. The article itself is the same usual combination of inane guilt tripping, tribalism disguised as objectivity, concern trolling and all around idiocy and evil one expects from open borders nutjobs. Even so, a thread where intelligent commentary (IE: mine) can be found might nevertheless prove useful.

    Original thread here:
    Inane article here: http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.c...rvative-guide/
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

  • #2
    And every post is by the same (extremely well paid, I'm guessing) guy I've never heard of. My thread actually has file pictures of the children in question(from NRO, uncharacteristically truthful on this issue for a mostly pseudo-con rag now)

    Typical disadvantaged 9th grader. Best part is, once he goes to school, he can invite himself to your daughter's quinceanera for some cultural exchange.


    • #3
      Let's take a look at what passes for argument in Dave Leach land:

      It’s a serious problem, but a problem perpetuated by restrictionists like WND, Center for Immigation Studies, and FAIR; not by expansionists such as CafeConLeche Republicans, the CATO Institute, or the Free Enterprise Institute.

      There is no realistic plan for stopping or even significantly reducing the flow of undocumented immigration.
      Ask our Israeli friends about that one! They seem to have the problem well in hand!

      One of restrictionist senator Jeff Sessions’ reasons for voting against the Immigration Compromise of 2007 was the report from the Congressional Budget Office that even with E-verify (then called EEVS) undocumented immigration would only be reduced 13% over several years. I don’t know what has changed since then, except that the CBO’s report didn’t take into account the error rate of E-verify. I suppose if the error rate were taken into account the reduction would be zero or less.
      "Duh, I didn't run any numbers, but I'm just going to say my opponents have ZERO PERCENT CHANCE OF WINNING."

      This is actually the total extent of his argument. I think we can cross this man off the 'serious contender' list just for that line alone, but let's let him keep talking just to show exactly how tiny a grasp on bureaucratic reality he truly possesses:

      But if quotas (“numerical limitations”) on how many we allow to come legally were repealed, so that the 99.9% of immigrants with no violent background who just want to work could come through the legal checkpoints, part of the process would be a medical exam. Truly contagious people could be quarantined or sent back depending on circumstances. Most of the problems could be arrested by fairly simple treatments, once diagnosed.

      There is no need to imagine these costs would be borne by taxpayers, either. With repeal of quotas would (or should) come massive simplification of the bureaucracy. If immigrants didn’t have to spend tens of thousands of dollars each just paying immigration fees and crooked pseudo lawyers, there would be plenty of resources to help new immigrants.
      If he's not actually this stupid, which he might be, we could talk a little bit about how letting in 99.9% of the 4 billion people in the world whose lives would be marginally improved into this country might have a few teensy, tiny social consequences of a Malthusian nature.

      Apparently no one debates him because they correctly see that he's not worth debating. Though if anyone wants to invite him to TWeb to go the full eighteen rounds with me and Darth I'd be quite happy to start the punching cycle, perhaps opening with a few missives on how pro-life Mexicans and Central Americans actually are.


      • #4
        KingsGambit cannot into math (or common sense):

        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        This part was salient:

        "Edward Schumacher-Matos found that while immigrant children remain high school drop outs, they will cost the state an annual $89,000. However if provided education, that same child will contribute a net $105,000."
        They will cost nothing if they are sent packing. They can contribute a lot more than 105k (made up number to begin with) if the Mexican government is fined for their return.

        It feels dirty considering people in economic terms, in light of who they consider.
        It feels dirty not to make judgments with your feels.

        I maintain that the other points would justify supporting this immigration even if this were not the case. However, it's always nice to turn talking points on their head.
        Yes, it's always nice to turn talking points on their head with made-up numbers. The author is so incompetent he misquotes the original source in his disfavor (the cost is 89k over their lifetime, not annually, apparently the author is too stupid to realize how absurd a cost over twice the annual US salary would be). I, of course, encourage the reader to go to the original source to find out just how dishonest Spartacus's fraudsters are:

        But you ask: What is the fiscal balance, anyway? No one knows. The brunt of the impact is state and local, particularly because of education, and no definitive study has been done. Services and the methodology in the few existing state studies vary widely. We have only estimates, mostly by partisans who impose values over how to count children, parse enforcement costs and the like.

        The most insightful study remains one done by the National Research Council in 1997. It gauged federal, state and local fiscal costs and contributions over the lifetime of an immigrant in 1996 dollars. Citizen children were included.

        The study found that an immigrant high school dropout ---- which characterizes nearly half of today's unauthorized people ---- received $89,000 more in services than he paid in taxes in his life. But an immigrant with at least some college ---- a quarter of today's unauthorized ---- gave $105,000 more than he got.
        Cretin Con Leech is using a study that has absolutely nothing to do with the claims he makes, other than that he sees "immigrant" somewhere in both and concludes that they are equivalent, because all immigrants and their situations are the same.
        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.


        Related Threads


        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by seer, Today, 11:52 AM
        19 responses
        Last Post Diogenes  
        Started by CivilDiscourse, 09-23-2023, 04:35 AM
        57 responses
        Last Post Ronson
        by Ronson
        Started by CivilDiscourse, 09-22-2023, 05:01 PM
        46 responses
        Last Post rogue06
        by rogue06
        Started by Gondwanaland, 09-22-2023, 12:29 PM
        10 responses
        Last Post Cow Poke  
        Started by seer, 09-21-2023, 09:39 AM
        21 responses
        Last Post Ronson
        by Ronson