Obama's Aunt - Asylum - Immigration Control

[WDRacing]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... -testify/1

I don't like the current Admin nor the stance that BO takes on most decisions. However...his Aunt needed to be granted asylum to stay in the country. Is it REALLY a big deal that the POTUS might have "assisted" in his Aunt getting asylum? I mean lets stop being so damn petty for a friggin second shall we? The dude is the POTUS, the leader of the free world, if someone in his family wants to live in the US then ffs they are gonna live in the US. Is it really a shocker?

Point: whether he did or didn't WGAF at this point really? If I were the POTUS and someone in my family needed some help...um...duh. Every single past POTUS could be called to the carpet for things ranging from full pardons to shady back room deals with Congress. Lets stop highlighting things that don't matter and get some work done shall we?

Anyone feel differently?

[dusred]

Hypocrisy. He claims to be a great humanitarian (most Lib's do) and yet his family is in a poor condition. I've heard stories of his brother living in poverty in a small shack and yet nothing is done. Don't know if the story is accurate but it wouldn't surprise me.

[AZhitman]

He told ICE not to deport anyone detained in AZ for being here illegally, so why should she be any different.

I have bigger issues with him than this. I'm suer the GOP will have a field day with it, but there's so much more they're NOT pouncing on him for.

[WDRacing]

Which is the way I feel also Greg. Of all the things we could be engaging on, the Aunt Asylum thing is...well just low priority. WGAF category type of stuff.

[IBCoupe]

Hypocrisy. He claims to be a great humanitarian (most Lib's do) and yet his family is in a poor condition. I've heard stories of his brother living in poverty in a small shack and yet nothing is done. Don't know if the story is accurate but it wouldn't surprise me.

You're remembering mostly correctly. There was a big thing of it made in the campaign. It's his half-brother (whom he'd never met). Turns out, Daddy Obama got it on in quite a few places. If memory serves, he's got another half-brother in China, and I don't know where else.

When asked, the African half-brother said he wanted no help from President Obama.

Honestly, I'd just prefer President Obama to lift the quotas on immigration across the board.

[stebo0728]

Honestly, I'd just prefer President Obama to lift the quotas on immigration across the board.

By this do you mean the quota of the people who are waiting in line like they are supposed to, or are you hinting at amnesty?

[IBCoupe]

I don't know how the word "quota" could be associated with "amnesty." Is there a quota related to that?

I'm of the belief that if you lift the quotas off those who are waiting in line, you're likely to see a decrease in those who would require amnesty.

[stebo0728]

Well I dont know if there is a quota to amnesty or not. Are there certain numbers of undocumented residents that are given documents? I dunno, I just wanted to clarify that you were referring to allowing in more people LEGALLY wanting in. That may be a great idea, I dunno what the socio-economic impact would be, but it might in deed have an impact on the amount of people willing to come in ILLEGALLY.

[WDRacing]

Lifted? How about closed for an indefinite amount of time. The last thing a country recovering from a recession needs is more people consuming resources. Be it jobs or social services, we have enough mouths to feed.

[stebo0728]

Well thats why I indicated that we need to explore the socio-economic impact before we decide to do that, and I agree with your assessment, not many people realize that immigration shutdowns, and even massive deportations have already occurred in our nations past, typically in times such as the ones we are in now.

[WDRacing]

Sorry, I didn't read anything you posted...I figured it was random blather

[IBCoupe]

They'd also create stimulus for businesses.

Typically, immigrant populations will work harder than other low-income brackets in the US, and it's probably because the type of person who's willing to uproot themselves, move to an entirely new society and start over isn't the kind of person who plans to sit on welfare for years. So I don't buy the "more people consuming resources" bit. The recession is worldwide, and the resources are worldwide. We pay for it one way or another, and there's no reason to block off our arbitrary lines on a map.

[WDRacing]

And when there are no jobs they jump on the welfare tit. We have enough Immigrants already to do all of the "new to America" motivated type of work. It's not just job opportunities they seek, we have social programs and free medicine. Those two things are huge motivators.

[AZhitman]

So I don't buy the "more people consuming resources" bit.

That's because you live in CT, not AZ.

[IBCoupe]

And when there are no jobs they jump on the welfare tit. We have enough Immigrants already to do all of the "new to America" motivated type of work. It's not just job opportunities they seek, we have social programs and free medicine. Those two things are huge motivators.

Jump on the welfare tit for how long? Isn't that what we have welfare for? It seems as if you're treating the country like a stock market - buying when it's cheap and selling when it's high.

And then there's that "this recession is worldwide" bit again and "it comes back to us eventually, anyways." We're already starting to see recovery, so the jobs thing won't last.

It can be inferred from your argument that you'd be in favor of removing quotas if the economy was healthy. Is this the case?

So I don't buy the "more people consuming resources" bit.

That's because you live in CT, not AZ.

No, it's because of the reasons I stated. You can tell because I wrote the word "So" at the beginning of the sentence, and placed the sentence after a few other arguments.

[AZhitman]

No, it's because of the reasons I stated. You can tell because I wrote the word "So" at the beginning of the sentence, and placed the sentence after a few other arguments.

And my point was that you're basing your assessment on a part of the country that is minimally affected by the types of immigration frustrations that the Southwest is contending with.

I'm sure people who live on Martha's Vineyard or the Hamptons can't comprehend why we're so aggravated, either.

[IBCoupe]

If your position is that my assessments and descripitions are inaccurate, make that your statement. Precluding my argument because I live in a different part of the world than you is asinine.

As usual, I'm not trying to be rude. It's just that you nailed one of my pet peeves on the head.

[AZhitman]

Quit apolo-splaining. You should know by now that I respect your positions enough that you don't have to explain your motivations.

Re-reading what you wrote, I'm not inclined to go as far as to label your points inaccurate, because for the most part, you're right.

Instead, I'll say this: When you said "Typically, immigrant populations will work harder than other low-income brackets in the US, ...the type of person who's willing to uproot themselves, move to an entirely new society and start over isn't the kind of person who plans to sit on welfare for years.", my first reaction was to say that the people who would disprove your theory are inordinately concentrated in this area of the country, so it stands to reason that your perception of that demographic would be a little less critical.

Hope that makes sense. We've got a real and observable drain on resources here (with welfare being one of the LEAST of those resource concerns).

[IBCoupe]

Okay. I'll cut it out.

Even if we stipulate that there is a resource drain and it is increased noticably by immigrant populations, because of the "work harder" thing, it's a bit like an investment. It will pay itself off and then some, given time. Yes, we've taken on a bunch of poor people, but these are the type of poor people who are willing to work hard because they've had it pretty crappy before... elsewise, they wouldn't have come here.

I'd be tempted to stipulate that it's that kind of thing that got us to the point where we can afford to continue to maintain the social programs we all fear will be abused.

[WDRacing]

And when there are no jobs they jump on the welfare tit. We have enough Immigrants already to do all of the "new to America" motivated type of work. It's not just job opportunities they seek, we have social programs and free medicine. Those two things are huge motivators.

and then there's that "this recession is worldwide" bit again and "it comes back to us eventually, anyways." We're already starting to see recovery, so the jobs thing won't last.

It can be inferred from your argument that you'd be in favor of removing quotas if the economy was healthy. Is this the case?

I never mentioned the global economy or anything about who's fault it is and I wasn't inferring we should ever remove the quota's for how many people should be welcomed into the country. There comes a time when the doors have to close. Things like sustainability come into play here. BTW, we aren't in recovery yet. When the unemployment goes down to 7% then we'll be in recovery. There are many economists that say we're walking the line of a double dip recession.

They'd also create stimulus for businesses.

Typically, immigrant populations will work harder than other low-income brackets in the US

How are they stimulating business? The majority of immigrants that come into this country don't bring anything of value, like cash to spend to assist in recovery. The ones that will work for next to nothing aren't legal, illegals don't pay taxes so there's no recovery assistance. If they come across and become citizens they want min wage just like everyone else. Min wage doesn't pay enough to support a family, so they get welfare or some other social program that is funded via tax dollars. They also qualify for all kinds of school grants that could other wise go to a someone that is already a citizen. Welfare is the reason people in low-income brackets don't appear to work as hard, because we've enabled them not to have to.

We have enough people consuming resources right now, we don't need any more. THAT is the point.

Jump on the welfare tit for how long? Isn't that what we have welfare for?

Seriously? Suffice it to say that our points of view will be polar opposite. AFAIC if the immigrant doesn't have a "plan" established before entering the country then they shouldn't be allowed in. Looking for work isn't a plan. Getting on welfare isn't a plan.

I don't care how awful it is/was in their country of origin, not my problem. Our country is operating in the red, more people eating tax dollars doesn't help my kids.

[WDRacing]

Okay. I'll cut it out.

Even if we stipulate that there is a resource drain and it is increased noticably by immigrant populations, because of the "work harder" thing, it's a bit like an investment. It will pay itself off and then some, given time. Yes, we've taken on a bunch of poor people, but these are the type of poor people who are willing to work hard because they've had it pretty crappy before... elsewise, they wouldn't have come here.

I'd be tempted to stipulate that it's that kind of thing that got us to the point where we can afford to continue to maintain the social programs we all fear will be abused.

Sorry for the double post, but you can stop using the "they work harder for less" BS. Everyone has it crappy now, so everyone is willing to do what they have to to make ends meet. You can't prove immigrants will work harder and I don't believe it. That and the above post pretty much sum up my thoughts on why we should at least temporarily close the borders. When we're on our feet again we can open the doors, but even then we need to seriously look at what people have to offer before we let them in to stay. Like I mentioned above, they need a plan. Something along the lines of what you'd submit to a bank for a small business loan.

[AZhitman]

...because of the "work harder" thing, it's a bit like an investment. It will pay itself off and then some, given time.

In the meantime, our ER's are full of undocumented people with no insurance, eating up taxpayer funds... the money being earned is NOT stimulating the local economies, it's being wired back to Mexico.

Last year Mexico received more than $17 billion in remittances. The amount of remittances in Mexico exceeds the amount of foreign direct investment in the country. In 2005 approximately $2.5 billion was sent to El Salvador. The amount represented more than 13% of El Salvador’s GDP, or gross domestic product. It is estimated that Latin Americans residing in the United States send $30 billion dollars to their native countries annually.

Think any taxes come out of that money?

I don't like the idea of an "investment" with that kind of crappy returns. Especially when I'm *forced* to 'buy it'.

[IBCoupe]

I think you're misinterpreting my argument. I'm not pointing fingers, assigning blame, or trying to create sympathy.

There are economists who say that we're trending towards a double-dip, and there are economists who say that it'll be a whole new world come January. So, I guess that about wraps it up for economists. On the other hand, my entirely unscientific people-I-happen-to-meet-in-my-daily-comings-and-goings poll says that things aren't as bad as they were a year ago, and GMC's decision not to shut down its factories for the summer, like it's done in the past (because there wasn't sufficient demand), tells me that my poll might be right, at least for the type of people that are liable to buy a truck - like, say, small business-owners.

And, you're right: One minimum wage job at forty hours each week doesn't pay enough to support a family of four (about $15100/yr). But, believe it or not, people will work more. And it's estimated that more than half of illegal immigrants do pay payroll taxes (Source). And there were lazy people long before there was welfare. Your entire worldview seems to be conveniently based around an ideology that finds its desired facts.

And, in all likelihood, fewer people eating tax dollars doesn't help your kids much, either.

[WDRacing]

Not sure why you're telling me about how hard people will work...nor why you're talking about lazy vs welfare. Your theory of "people will work more" already applies to the people residing here. More people willing to work isn't going to create more jobs. Then there's Greg's point of working hard and sending money OUT of the country.

My point is clear and simple, less consumption of resources is the goal. Less people = less consumption on every scale whether it's welfare or jobs.

You'd have to be pretty naive not make the connection between a country operating in the red and the welfare of my kids and their future.

[IBCoupe]

Well, your criticism was that they won't make enough money to buy goods or services because they'll be too poor, and my response is that they won't be too poor.

Also, it seems to me that a low-paid but highly-motivated employee is a business asset, not a drain.

And you'd have to be pretty blind to suggest that the reason the country's in the red is food stamps and public schools, when Defense (23%), Social Security (20%) and Medicare/Medicaid (19%) make up the majority (62%) of our federal spending.

[AZhitman]

And you'd have to be pretty blind to suggest that the reason the country's in the red is food stamps and public schools.

Nope, that would be:

...Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

Just because they're not THE reason doesn't mean they're not A reason.

And just because they're not THE reason doesn't mean we dismiss those areas as unworthy of scrutiny and changes.

One need only read the Executive Summary of your source (good find, btw) to see that we're not just "picking on the little guy" just to be spiteful.

[stebo0728]

because of the "work harder" thing, it's a bit like an investment. It will pay itself off and then some, given time

What kind of payoff are you looking for, 2nd generation immigrants are for the most part lazy martards...

[IBCoupe]

What I liked about the executive summary was that it dispelled a ton of what appear to be false assumptions about illegal immigration: amnesty would actually cause them to be more of a drain because they'd have more programs available, and the impact they have on the federal budet is less than 1%.

I'm not saying we don't need to change our programs, but I am saying that cutting off immigration is the absurd way to do it. Yes, it could save us some money, but it might cost us in the long run. And the amount of money saved, in the larger view, is not that great. But what seems most important to me, and it goes back to the "investment" idea I wrote of earlier, is that we don't want to be turning highly motivated people away (the type of person who emigrates to begin with), because those are the people that get s*** done. And if we turn them away, they'll just go and be highly motivated elsewhere.

[IBCoupe]

because of the "work harder" thing, it's a bit like an investment. It will pay itself off and then some, given time

What kind of payoff are you looking for, 2nd generation immigrants are for the most part lazy martards...

I don't have any data on that, but that's a tough thing to say, if we're talking about the recent rise in illegal immigration from the south. The median age of US-born children among those families is 14, so there's not a lot of data to support a determination on that trend.

[AZhitman]

What I liked about the executive summary was that it dispelled a ton of what appear to be false assumptions about illegal immigration: amnesty would actually cause them to be more of a drain because they'd have more programs available, and the impact they have on the federal budet is less than 1%..

Yep. Agreed 100%. Anything that debunks the "amnesty" position is good in my book. It's a short-sighted, emotional response to a complex socioeconomic boondoggle.

I'm not saying we don't need to change our programs, but I am saying that cutting off immigration is the absurd way to do it. Yes, it could save us some money, but it might cost us in the long run. And the amount of money saved, in the larger view, is not that great. But what seems most important to me, and it goes back to the "investment" idea I wrote of earlier, is that we don't want to be turning highly motivated people away (the type of person who emigrates to begin with), because those are the people that get s*** done. And if we turn them away, they'll just go and be highly motivated elsewhere.

We already have a very well-managed system for that. It's called the H1 (and H1-B) visa program. I work with a lot of H1-B visa holders, and they represent a big difference from the guy who sneaks across the border, endangers himself and authorities in the process, shacks up in a big southwestern city, hoping to find work outside the Home Depot, drinks beer when there's no work, drives with no insurance, pays no taxes, falls off the back of a mower and spends the night in the ER incurring a $7K medical bill - at my expense.

Stereotypical generalization? Maybe.

Or is it?

Come on down, it's nice in AZ this time of year.