qman said:

"the facts don't support your claims"

Which facts on what claims? 

I don't care about illegals not fearing about "jail time, deportation", they're in the US ILLEGALLY.

Again, why do you want to throw US workers under the bus to benefit non-US citizens?

You obviously put the higher priority on non-US citizens before US citizens. If that's your true feelings just please admit it.  It's much better than trying to blow smoke and claiming your goals are to benefit everybody at the same time. Can you be intellectually honest for at least two seconds?

---

christopera said:

qman said:

"the facts don't support your claims"

Which facts on what claims? 

I don't care about illegals not fearing about "jail time, deportation", they're in the US ILLEGALLY.

Again, why do you want to throw US workers under the bus to benefit non-US citizens?

You obviously put the higher priority on non-US citizens before US citizens. If that's your true feelings just please admit it.  It's much better than trying to blow smoke and claiming your goals are to benefit everybody at the same time. Can you be intellectually honest for at least two seconds?

---

I have on multiple occasions provides sources the describe exactly what social services illegals do and don't get, yet you continue to claim that they get the exact same services as citizens. You continually act like adding tax revenue is a bad thing. You continue to claim that my proposed actions would hurt Americans when I have provided evidence and sources that prove it would help them. You are making shit up and it's sad, you are the one who refuses to address evidence, sources, and have a lack of intellectual honesty.

---

You're full of it. Illegals and their children use billions in US tax revenue, this is a proven FACT.  Illegals abuse the hell out of the system with anchor babies, why do you think almost every developed nation got rid of anchor baby policy besides the US? 

You provided NO EVIDENCE that making illegals into legal workers would benefit US citizens at all. You speculated it MIGHT benefit US citizens, but provided zero evidence.

You can't even answer ONE of the dozens of questions I have asked in this thread because you're too embarrassed to admit your line of reasoning is extremely flawed.

Quote:

So because one company (Enron) out of thousands of publicly traded companies ended up being a scam and burned its shareholders, everything should be "owned collectively"?  That's not even an argument, please try again. 

---

qman said:

You're full of it. Illegals and their children use billions in US tax revenue, this is a proven FACT.  Illegals abuse the hell out of the system with anchor babies, why do you think almost every developed nation got rid of anchor baby policy besides the US? 

You provided NO EVIDENCE that making illegals into legal workers would benefit US citizens at all. You speculated it MIGHT benefit US citizens, but provided zero evidence.

You can't even answer ONE of the dozens of questions I have asked in this thread because you're too embarrassed to admit your line of reasoning is extremely flawed.

---

qman said:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-14/antifa-democratic-socialists-new-world-order-all-want-same-thing-no-borders-no-wall "No USA at all"

At least they're honest about it.

---

qman said:

Illegals abuse the hell out of the system with anchor babies,

---

qman said:

why do you think almost every developed nation got rid of anchor baby policy besides the US? 

---

??

it appears as though ~60 countries confer some form of birthright citizenship.  idk why canada isn't highlighted as i believe it's enshrined as a right in law there.

the united states confers citizenship on the principle of jus soli, or right of soil, meaning where the person was born.  the supremes decided that the principle of jus sanguinis or right of blood(lines) does not apply in our country of immigrants.


edit:


from here:  http://constitutionalrights.constitutioncenter.org/

christopera said:

qman said:

You're full of it. Illegals and their children use billions in US tax revenue, this is a proven FACT.  Illegals abuse the hell out of the system with anchor babies, why do you think almost every developed nation got rid of anchor baby policy besides the US? 

You provided NO EVIDENCE that making illegals into legal workers would benefit US citizens at all. You speculated it MIGHT benefit US citizens, but provided zero evidence.

You can't even answer ONE of the dozens of questions I have asked in this thread because you're too embarrassed to admit your line of reasoning is extremely flawed.

---

Tell me where I disputed that they cost money. I never did. I proposed a solution to decrease or eliminate that expense while potentially reducing some of the negative effects of the illegal working population.

Tell me where I speculated. I showed estimates, based on numbers that were backed by sources.

Your questions are based on things you refuse to discuss. You've already made up your mind. When counter evidence or other lines of thinking are presented you refuse to discuss or to even talk about the potential legitimacy of them. This, likely, is because you dislike brown people.

qman said:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-14/antifa-democratic-socialists-new-world-order-all-want-same-thing-no-borders-no-wall "No USA at all"

At least they're honest about it.

---

That's an opinion piece, one that does nothing more than speculate. I never once said we shouldn't have borders and I've continued to argue that we should have more checks at the border, especially in that we should be able to track exactly those who we let in. And an NRA video, a lobby for the gun companies, this is your evidence? Bro...

Until you can actually discuss something, agree that other arguments have merit, debate that merit with counterpoints, provide sources that aren't opinions, I think we are done here. I'll be moving on. Enjoy your life of hating brown people.

---

relic said:

qman said:

Illegals abuse the hell out of the system with anchor babies,

---

can you expand on how the system is abused by use of anchor babies in your opinion?  are you just citing that children born here are citizens and get social benefits of citizens?  please provide your reasoning for calling out this abuse you cite.  TIA

qman said:

why do you think almost every developed nation got rid of anchor baby policy besides the US? 

---

??

it appears as though ~60 countries confer some form of birthright citizenship.  idk why canada isn't highlighted as i believe it's enshrined as a right in law there.

the united states confers citizenship on the principle of jus soli, or right of soil, meaning where the person was born.  the supremes decided that the principle of jus sanguinis or right of blood(lines) does not apply in our country of immigrants.


edit:


from here:  http://constitutionalrights.constitutioncenter.org/

---

qman said:

relic said:

qman said:

Illegals abuse the hell out of the system with anchor babies,

---

can you expand on how the system is abused by use of anchor babies in your opinion?  are you just citing that children born here are citizens and get social benefits of citizens?  please provide your reasoning for calling out this abuse you cite.  TIA

qman said:

why do you think almost every developed nation got rid of anchor baby policy besides the US? 

---

??

it appears as though ~60 countries confer some form of birthright citizenship.  idk why canada isn't highlighted as i believe it's enshrined as a right in law there.

the united states confers citizenship on the principle of jus soli, or right of soil, meaning where the person was born.  the supremes decided that the principle of jus sanguinis or right of blood(lines) does not apply in our country of immigrants.


edit:


from here:  http://constitutionalrights.constitutioncenter.org/

---

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/252556-lets-get-real-and-end-birthright-citizenship-for-illegal

Over 400,000 per year, it's too attractive of a policy not to abuse. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives/

Every developed nation outside of the US and Canada got rid of birthright citizenship years ago. It's obviously abused and the costs are too high, unless you're a third world nation which isn't going to give you anything.

---

Quote:

The CIA notes that these countries

    generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $15,000;

---

relic said:

thanks for the link.  that's a weird list since the numerical criteria listed by the CIA causes some countries to be eliminated from the list while others are mysteriously omitted.  (determined by info at your link and shown in the wiki article).

i now see how you thought that no developed countries have some form of birthright citizenship, but that claim is factually inaccurate if we consider the CIA's own per capita GDP criteria as i've quoted from the article as follows:

Quote:

The CIA notes that these countries

    generally have a per capita GDP in excess of $15,000;

---

using that, at least four developed countries as defined by the CIA's GDP requirement in central and south america have birthright citizenship.

again, thanks for the link as it explains why you made the claim that you did, but you'd be more factually accurate in the future by not claiming that "Every developed nation outside of the US and Canada got rid of birthright citizenship years ago."

---

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

there's not a shortage of job's right now

---

So wages and tax receipts are booming as a result?  Nope, it looks like 1 + 1 = 3 again.

---

Seriously_trippin said:

There absolutely is completely saturated demand and less and less supply with jobs. In my area there are waiting lists 6 months long for a job at Wal-Mart.  Hell I know  people with BA workin at Walgreens. Population growth alone has made it harder every year.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

there's not a shortage of job's right now

---

So wages and tax receipts are booming as a result?  Nope, it looks like 1 + 1 = 3 again.

---

It's been explained to you dozens of times why wages aren't booming, but your answer is always the same - "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, IT'S ALL THE DARK SKINNED PEOPLE'S FAULT!!!"

---

qman said:

If the law of supply and demand no longer matters in the labor market, why don't you tell companies not to spend millions of dollars lobbying for more illegal/legal immigration into the US.

You see Fal, the elite don't buy into your theory that the law of supply and demand isn't a huge factor for wages, they never have because they know historically it does matter.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

qman said:

If the law of supply and demand no longer matters in the labor market, why don't you tell companies not to spend millions of dollars lobbying for more illegal/legal immigration into the US.

You see Fal, the elite don't buy into your theory that the law of supply and demand isn't a huge factor for wages, they never have because they know historically it does matter.

---

I've shown you many times that there is currently no correlation between the unemployment rate and wages, but ""LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU, IT'S ALL THE DARK SKINNED PEOPLE'S FAULT!!!"

---