Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G. Gordon Gator, Jan 13, 2018.
the international reaction? please they all have their hands out
But that doesn't match your claim. The "shithole" countries are Sub-Saharan African countries. What is the percentage of those immigrants on some form of government assistance?
where did I say anything about africa
while a lot of those countries in africa are shit holes I said 3rd world countries
That was pure irony on Obama's part, because he was the one who encouraged Libya to revolt (with military assistance from the U.S.) but lacked the courage to follow it up and make sure that democracy (or something other than anarchy) took hold. It was especially ironic in that Obama (the Peacenik Surrender King and Great Pontificator) was successful with his military intervention, but an utter failure with diplomacy afterwards. What he seemed to fail to recognize was that once he stuck his nose in it, it was HIS $#!t-show. Fortunately, no one called him out on it.
however since you mentioned it there is not much out there about the use of guvment assistance by africans in the US but there is plenty out there about how their migration to England is about to break that country
Well this thread is about how his comments were restricted to Sub-Saharan African immigrants and countries. In addition, I said:
Interesting that you think that immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa are "taxing our system." Why do you think that?
Which is in reference to the subject of this thread. Your response was to discuss "them," which would appear to be a reference to the immigrants from Sub-Saharan African immigrants that are both the subject of Trump's comments and my posts:
more than half of them are on guvment assistance
It seems like Dems had no problems calling Mexico and other places crap holes previously.
Obama was criticized on the "right" for leading from behind in Lybia. Lybia was all about supporting European allies. But, this digresses from the topic.
I think Libya qualifies as a shit hole
And here I thought it was the Muslims. Or the Polish. But sure, let's see the nature of that information.
Perhaps, but when bribery is the way things get done in a given area, and you aren’t allowed to play by local rules in that given area while foreign companies can, you aren’t going to win many contracts. If you think the Chinese government is building public works from the goodness of their heart, I have a bridge to sell you. It is hard to separate Chinese companies from the Chinese government. The US doesn’t have the same level of planning and control as China does over their economy.
Do you believe that if the US government spent more money in African countries, that the African countries would automatically reward US companies with more contracts and mineral rights? Does the US government subsidize US companies to make them more competitive in foreign markets? In Afghanistan, the US is spending blood and treasure to stabilize the government, while China steps in (i.e. bribes their way) and gets rights to the mineral finds.
Highly criticized study based on flawed data. Nor does the response address my question on the effect of the immigration reform and proposed deportations on business.
The author of the more recent study, public policy analyst Jason Richwine, is no stranger to controversy. In 2013, he was dismissed from his position at the Heritage Foundation after it was revealed that his PhD dissertation at Harvard, titled "IQ and Immigration Policy," whose abstract asserted that "[t]he average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations.
Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who criticized the center's previous analysis, tells The Christian Science Monitor this recent study is "fatally flawed" in the same way.
"If they actually wanted to count how much welfare immigrants use, they should have just counted the immigrants and the welfare they use, instead of the households of US citizens – that is an apples-to-apples comparison," says Mr. Nowrasteh.
Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public benefits, and legal immigrants can receive benefits only once they have been a citizen for five years. Yet, the study calculates the welfare costs for children of undocumented immigrants.
Yet, some argue there is an often overlooked benefit of supporting these children.
They hear POTUS, understand that POTUS represents many Americans, and will look elsewhere as POTUS withdraws from treaties (documenting that our word is worthless), insults them as coming from "sh**Hole" countries and tells them that their people are undesirable. Trump's message, and that of his supporters, is getting across.
Low-income immigrants use public benefits like Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program) at a lower rate than low-income native-born citizens.
Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have lower rates of public benefit use than native-born adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born. For Medicaid, if there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be about $98,400, while for the same number of non-citizen adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200. The benefits cost of non-citizens is 42 percent below the cost of the native-born adults. For children, a comparable calculation for 100 non-citizens yields $22,700 in costs, while 100 citizen children of citizen parents cost $67,000 in benefits. The benefits cost of non-citizen children is 66 percent below the cost of benefits for citizen children of citizen parents. The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower average benefits means that the overall financial cost of providing public benefits to non-citizen immigrants and most naturalized immigrants is lower than for native-born people. Non-citizen immigrants receive fewer government benefits than similarly poor natives.
The only accurate statement is that they will probably vote Democrat and that's primarily because of the anti-immigrant position of a number of Republican politicians including the current POTUS. Immigrants would be a natural Republican constituency were not for that anti-immigrant positions of certain GOP politicians. Immigrants are more likely to be entrepreneurs, they have more of a work ethic than a lot of native-born Americans and also tend to be religious and socially conservative. George W. and JEB Bush and even Ronald Reagan recognized the potential of immigrants as future Republican voters.
Immigrants Are Makers, Not Takers
Thanks for posting the data. I asked about the effect on the economy of mass deportations and focused on unskilled immigrants. But, presumably, skilled immigrants would be deported, too. And, business owners. I have not seen a quantification of that, or of the effect of not having new immigrants as upwardly mobile children of immigrants are educated and take better jobs.
That's from a CIS study based on census data which includes free or reduced price school lunches received by their children, including the citizen children of immigrants, as government assistance. In fact, very few immigrants receive or are even eligible for cash assistance, food stamps (SNAP) or Medicaid.
I understand the comment as people from shit hole countries and not, shit holes from African countries. If he were talking about the people as you say - he is then being factual, based on my experiences-IMO. I can’t number on one hand who I believe would’ve assimilated successfully and probably two or three would meet requirements on a “general” merit based system.
Sadly I think it’s more the former with a little bit of the latter sprinkled in...every person at least once in their life has used the word shithole to describe a run down area/bar/restaurant etc...the hypocrisy is hilarious...and the irony is, this is one reason why he won...people didn’t want PC...they wanted a straight edge, direct, truthful leader...some people can handle it, some can’t..
And that's telling it like it is.