It's settled fact that immigrants are net tax payers by the 2nd generation, and the net cost of the first generation is ~all due to the schooling of their children, who are US citizens. You don't have to ask about debt, because immigration is reducing it.

Well, your question has nothing to do with anything I've posted. Until you elaborate to how it does, with out creating a false dichotomy or straw man, I'm not going to engage. The ball is still in your court.

Trump : All mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists

Leftist : That seems kinda racist

itshot : Why do you lefties always bring race into everything?

You asserted that liberals are falsely injecting race into immigration debates. It is not a false dichotomy or a straw man to ask if that is true in historical examples.

https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2018/09/wh...-child-poverty

And for the record, you want to increase child poverty in the US, at least temporarily (we hope). Your little stat also does not address future spending liberals will assuredly want to incorporate for issues such as the one in the link, to which some of us would not necessarily be opposed too. Further, your stat does not take in account the increased budgets required to make immigrants eligible to entitlement programs, which almost all of them would qualify for. I hope you would not argue that first generations immigrants would not be net consumers of entitlements.

We've been through this, but at this juncture you go back to calling me a racist, and we start all over. Please don't do that.

No, try again. This is a straw man, as I've explained and elaborated on repeatedly

Your link does not establish that immigrants are responsible for more than transient child poverty, and furthermore, I am generally unconcerned about them being transiently poor, as that is still better off than where they were. Even if they are equally poor, they aren't facing the same threats to their lives or their children's lives. Also, this argument from you is basically trolling, as you oppose taking measures to combat child poverty. As such, why would I even think you give two ****s if child poverty includes 10000 more children than it does right now?

Oh, I see. The monetary impact of immigrants is limited only by your imagination.

Immigrants being net tax payers includes entitlements.

Well, given that your objections based on cost are bull**** and fantasies, what should I call you?

Bull****. You said:

So, this post is an example of where I think these types of discussions break down. You say your opposition to immigration reforms that would essentially allow more immigrants into the country legally is that we can’t afford it. I respond by effectively saying I have been through these cost discussions before and I don’t think there is compelling evidence to support the assertion that we can’t afford more immigrants (in fact, I think it’s the opposite, I think immigrants provide a boost to the economy, but that’s really beside the point right now). Then you respond with the above post talking about how in your experience people start calling people in your position racist, and then make a vague comment about a general debate between liberal vs fiscal conservatives being settled.

From my perspective that is not a response that is at all constructive, as it does not provide any evidence or argument that supports your assertion that we can’t afford to let in more immigrants. What I’m interested in, and what would actually produce something useful to talk about, is on what do you base your belief/opinion that we can’t afford more immigrants?

That did not take long. I had a response to things above this, but once I got here, it became clear we were going down the same road of you asserting an ulterior motive (trolling), while supporting that accusation with an attack my character by wrongly assuming I oppose taking measure to combat child poverty, in order to insinuate that I'm a heartless scumbag, of which neither is true, and does not contend with any point I've ever posted on this forum, which, coincidentally, is the epitome of a straw man. I'm sorry, but I'm disengaging with you now. You've repeatedly shown you are incapable of an intellectually honest discussion.

Does that help?

If that's true, then don't we have a moral obligation to not accept immigrants from economy's worse than ours? I mean, it must be absolutely devastating to an already weak economy to lose all these workers.

If a very poor child from Guatemala comes to the US and becomes a less poor child in the US, do you think that's somehow bad for children just because it increases the rate of child poverty in the US?

The three states with the largest foreign born populations in the US are California, New York and New Jersey. Lowest foreign born populations are West Virginia, Montana and Mississippi.

Unmitigated immigration. We can dance around catch and release, and all other passive measures to limit immigration, but it's essentially unmitigated immigration. For instance, I'm personally not opposed to increasing migrant workers coming to the US to provide for their families back in their home country.

To elaborate on the "we can't afford it", we cant afford to increase the number of those in poverty. And the net tax payers thing by the second generation is lacking, in my opinion. There are enormous indirect cost on local, state, and federal budgets resulting from poverty. One that we do not really grapple too well with now, a prime example of this is the CJS. We continue to incarcerate poor people, and we want to add more poor people. We have not resolved that issue, and it has a huge cost both from a moral perspective and cost perspective. More immigration, more poor people, more people in jail and that creates a cost at the local, state, and federal level. That's only one aspect.

I'm not arguing they will not have it better here. I agree, they will. At least until our economy crashes. Then we will have to deal with shrinking tax revenues, and an increased head count of people receiving entitlements.

No, it doesn't. There isn't a functional difference between liberal and progressive other than branding. "falsely injecting" and "invalidating" seem synonymous as well. Your use of invalidating suggests that you don't think that the thing allegedly being invalidated is so, which means that you think the invalidation being made is false. Finally I picked out immigration debates from your list of" any " because this is an immigration debate. Immigration is obviously a subset of" any".

This is true at all times when the economy crashes.

Immigrants commit less crimes than the native born. Once again your claim is bull****.

Like, everyone agrees that if we have a growing population of natives, we can and will build more and bigger courthouses, police stations, jails, etc. and those will be funded by the additional tax revenue that comes from having additional tax payers. The fact that some of these new people are immigrants doesn't change this. The number of police officers we have now is not at some hard cap, and neither is our tax revenue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.3f5744288a62

https://prospect.org/article/how-muc...overty-america

When Trump tells certain congresswomen to go back to their countries, it doesn't take a progressive to see racism operating.

Still waiting on an answer for this. Or were you just using words you don't understand?

I'll settle for an explanation of why it costs over $700 per day per person to detain a child seeking asylum.

I can't pass this one up.

Read it again. People in poverty go to jail more often than those not in poverty. You want to increase the amount of poor people. This will increase the amount of people that go to jail, irrelevant of the fact immigrants commit less crime, we still will have a net increase of people in jail. Considering the massive distaste we seem to share for putting poor people in cages, I think you would be especially receptive to this position. I digress, once again.

This wrong insofar as race per se isn't the main thing. It's about bigotry and xenophobia (of course a lot of us use all these words carelessly as spiritual synonyms). I'm an immigrant living in Europe. People correctly perceive my ancestry to be (mostly) eastern european and i get told to go back to my country and the like with far more regularity than I had ever imagined would happen. It's also about language and accents. I get abused by one guy I work with on this account. On the one hand, it has opened my eyes to how racism really works and what some folks suffer constantly (of course one can hide an accent more than skin tone). On the other hand it's not about race, it's because i talk funny, I think funny, and I'm an outsider threatening tje comforts he takes for granted and competing in the workplace (at a big disadvantage, but that gets ignored).

Race is a bogus construct. I have genetic cousins that are asian, black, hispanic, scottish, etc. In the US it can't be ignored because one grows up taught to always take it into account, and vicious bullies like Trump use it to appeal to the victimization sense cultivated by the upper middle class that doesn't like seeing its privileges eroded.

Give a meth addicts a million dollars each and see where most end up. That's like the people saying that if you just spent billions, upon billions we could end world hunger.