14 years and counting...
Comments
-
The “costs” are estimates, too. That’s how this sort of public accounting works.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Nor does it take a rocket scientist to find alternate sources of information that rely on factual data, like the State of Florida’s tax data. But yea, I’ve read multiple reports that cite economic numbers or that they analyzed data from more than 40 different ways to disprove their assumption. They all come back and say basically the same thing, that legal and illegal immigrants contribute way more than they take or cost and if we didn’t have them, the economy would stagnate and suffer. And it holds true whether it’s Germany, Canada or the US. That is called formulating and informed opinion but feel free to wallow in your ignorance.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
https://www.thenation.com/article/undocumented-immigrants-contribute-over-11-billion-to-our-economy-each-year/
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Considering the vast majority of the population did not descend from the colonists, I think it would be difficult to find an immigrant group that is a specific drain on the economy compared to other ethnic groups, in the long run. Of course there's a near term cost, but wouldn't a first year economic student call that an opportunity cost?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
Also the CIS is a well known anti-immigration think tank. The HHS is a governmental agency and likely produced a fairer analysis, particularly since it was a Republic administration.0 -
PJ_Soul said:
That is from 1994, lol.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run.
"lol"
thats from the center for immigration studies- there's not much of a better, more unbiased source available out there.. Although Mrussel just said otherwise- I didn't realize it was biased. Do the work yourself, it’s a whole site for your perusal, very recent articles. I actually was reading a different one from May 22, 2018 but my phone spazzed out and so I posted the one above. You may find that the results that they’ve found haven’t changed much since the '94 linked one (obviously. immigration is still immigration, why would it?) Out of curiosity, why would you think that findings would be different today than then? California lost almost 280 million, Texas -130 million. Pretty much always a negative for the city.
Post edited by RoleModelsinBlood31 onI'm like an opening band for your mom.0 -
RoleModelsinBlood31 said:PJ_Soul said:
That is from 1994, lol.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run.
"lol"
thats from the center for immigration studies- there's not much of a better, more unbiased source available out there.. Do the work yourself, it’s a whole site for your perusal, very recent articles. I actually was reading a different one from May 22, 2018 but my phone spazzed out and so I posted the one above. You may find that the results that they’ve found haven’t changed much since the '94 linked one (obviously. immigration is still immigration, why would it?) Out of curiosity, why would you think that findings would be different today than then? California lost almost 280 million, Texas -130 million. Pretty much always a negative for the city.
I mean....should we just keep posting this article in response to bullshit posts like this one?Quit ignoring FACTS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
By the way, the CIS is an ANTI IMMIGRANT organization who has been branded a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. No bias on that site you found with a quick google search!
Quit ignoring facts and stop wasting our time with these ignorant posts that are not based in reality.
Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
Didn't realize it was a biased think tank at all. The numbers seemed legit.mrussel1 said:
Considering the vast majority of the population did not descend from the colonists, I think it would be difficult to find an immigrant group that is a specific drain on the economy compared to other ethnic groups, in the long run. Of course there's a near term cost, but wouldn't a first year economic student call that an opportunity cost?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
Also the CIS is a well known anti-immigration think tank. The HHS is a governmental agency and likely produced a fairer analysis, particularly since it was a Republic administration.
I hear what you're saying but not sure you can compare colonial times to now with regards to immigration's affect on the economy. The reason it's up for debate is that the info out there is so skewed both ways- why isn't there some honest information so all can see if it's a gross plus or minus on an economy??
Personally my feelings towards immigration have changed dramatically since I moved to Texas. When I lived in NY it was a non issue, so I was like "what's the problem?!" Now that I spend 30k a year to put my daughter through private middle school because the schools are so shitty here due to how labored they are trying to bring Spanish speaking students up to state standards, I've learned to see it a whole different way. Would my 30k a year cost to give her an average education figure into costs that citizen's bare?I'm like an opening band for your mom.0 -
I think it's been made pretty clear here that the perspective you're promoting is basically garbage. But to satisfy your curiosity, why wouldn't 1994 findings be different than they are today? Don't you have any concept of how much has changed in 24 years, with the economy, taxation, the job market, the cost of things, the population, salaries, social programs, issues that immigrants confront, international politics, etc etc etc? Nobody trying to prove a point about the present would ever purposefully post an article that old and expect anyone to take it seriously - its age renders it completely meaningless because the reader has literally no clue what if anything in it still applies. I mean, saying that immigration is immigration, why would things change is a weird thing to say... By that logic, we should consult the immigration records and related news from 1876 and proclaim that we understand today's immigration issues, lol. But you say you didn't purposefully post the very old article; I suppose I'll take your word for it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:PJ_Soul said:
That is from 1994, lol.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run.
"lol"
thats from the center for immigration studies- there's not much of a better, more unbiased source available out there.. Although Mrussel just said otherwise- I didn't realize it was biased. Do the work yourself, it’s a whole site for your perusal, very recent articles. I actually was reading a different one from May 22, 2018 but my phone spazzed out and so I posted the one above. You may find that the results that they’ve found haven’t changed much since the '94 linked one (obviously. immigration is still immigration, why would it?) Out of curiosity, why would you think that findings would be different today than then? California lost almost 280 million, Texas -130 million. Pretty much always a negative for the city.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
That's a pretty pleasant surprise (the $63 billion, not that Trump refutes the study) because I really never would have guessed that. Also, I don't want to be lumping refugees/asylum seekers (same thing?) in with illegal immigrants, which is what Trump wants you to do. He subtly lumps them all together. I'm all for giving refuge, surprised that it's actually beneficial to the economy, shouldn't have accepted Meltdown's numbers simply on the basis that I figured they were accurate, and yeah...I have to admit mistake. Not just in having the facts wrong, but not in not being bothered to research (one of you guys said "lazy" and you were right). I was writing memorandums for the court (I'm a probation officer) while talking refugee benefits/concerns on the Pearl Jam message board and was like "Ughh let this day end."mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
My point on colonial times is that unless you're part of a first family, you're an immigrant. It was a tongue in cheek comment. Now regarding your schools, I'm not saying that an immigrant population doesn't put a strain on schools, it may, but there's a strong correlation between the state income tax rate and the quality of the public education.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Didn't realize it was a biased think tank at all. The numbers seemed legit.mrussel1 said:
Considering the vast majority of the population did not descend from the colonists, I think it would be difficult to find an immigrant group that is a specific drain on the economy compared to other ethnic groups, in the long run. Of course there's a near term cost, but wouldn't a first year economic student call that an opportunity cost?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
Also the CIS is a well known anti-immigration think tank. The HHS is a governmental agency and likely produced a fairer analysis, particularly since it was a Republic administration.
I hear what you're saying but not sure you can compare colonial times to now with regards to immigration's affect on the economy. The reason it's up for debate is that the info out there is so skewed both ways- why isn't there some honest information so all can see if it's a gross plus or minus on an economy??
Personally my feelings towards immigration have changed dramatically since I moved to Texas. When I lived in NY it was a non issue, so I was like "what's the problem?!" Now that I spend 30k a year to put my daughter through private middle school because the schools are so shitty here due to how labored they are trying to bring Spanish speaking students up to state standards, I've learned to see it a whole different way. Would my 30k a year cost to give her an average education figure into costs that citizen's bare?0 -
Let's just agree not to respond to each other from now on. I see your comments/opinions as worthless as you see mine, but at least I live in the country of which I speak.PJ_Soul said:
I think it's been made pretty clear here that the perspective you're promoting is basically garbage. But to satisfy your curiosity, why wouldn't 1994 findings be different than they are today? Don't you have any concept of how much has changed in 24 years, with the economy, taxation, the job market, the cost of things, the population, salaries, social programs, issues that immigrants confront, international politics, etc etc etc? Nobody trying to prove a point about the present would ever purposefully post an article that old and expect anyone to take it seriously - its age renders it completely meaningless because the reader has literally no clue what if anything in it still applies. I mean, saying that immigration is immigration, why would things change is a weird thing to say... By that logic, we should consult the immigration records and related news from 1876 and proclaim that we understand today's immigration issues, lol. But you say you didn't purposefully post the very old article; I suppose I'll take your word for it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:PJ_Soul said:
That is from 1994, lol.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run.
"lol"
thats from the center for immigration studies- there's not much of a better, more unbiased source available out there.. Although Mrussel just said otherwise- I didn't realize it was biased. Do the work yourself, it’s a whole site for your perusal, very recent articles. I actually was reading a different one from May 22, 2018 but my phone spazzed out and so I posted the one above. You may find that the results that they’ve found haven’t changed much since the '94 linked one (obviously. immigration is still immigration, why would it?) Out of curiosity, why would you think that findings would be different today than then? California lost almost 280 million, Texas -130 million. Pretty much always a negative for the city.I'm like an opening band for your mom.0 -
Cool, thanks for the info. I'm assuming TX has a relatively low income tax then, because their schools sure suck. What about property tax? We pay a shitload here, so much that's it's changing the demographic throughout the city. I pay just slightly less, about 1k, than my parents in upstate NY, and their house is worth 300k more.mrussel1 said:
My point on colonial times is that unless you're part of a first family, you're an immigrant. It was a tongue in cheek comment. Now regarding your schools, I'm not saying that an immigrant population doesn't put a strain on schools, it may, but there's a strong correlation between the state income tax rate and the quality of the public education.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Didn't realize it was a biased think tank at all. The numbers seemed legit.mrussel1 said:
Considering the vast majority of the population did not descend from the colonists, I think it would be difficult to find an immigrant group that is a specific drain on the economy compared to other ethnic groups, in the long run. Of course there's a near term cost, but wouldn't a first year economic student call that an opportunity cost?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
Also the CIS is a well known anti-immigration think tank. The HHS is a governmental agency and likely produced a fairer analysis, particularly since it was a Republic administration.
I hear what you're saying but not sure you can compare colonial times to now with regards to immigration's affect on the economy. The reason it's up for debate is that the info out there is so skewed both ways- why isn't there some honest information so all can see if it's a gross plus or minus on an economy??
Personally my feelings towards immigration have changed dramatically since I moved to Texas. When I lived in NY it was a non issue, so I was like "what's the problem?!" Now that I spend 30k a year to put my daughter through private middle school because the schools are so shitty here due to how labored they are trying to bring Spanish speaking students up to state standards, I've learned to see it a whole different way. Would my 30k a year cost to give her an average education figure into costs that citizen's bare?I'm like an opening band for your mom.0 -
This is almost poetic. Read your comment out loud in an English accent. It's very dignified, and an admirable way to end an argument.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Let's just agree not to respond to each other from now on. I see your comments/opinions as worthless as you see mine, but at least I live in the country of which I speak.
Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
Did I miss anything today? lol0
-
You have no state income tax. Not sure about property but isn't that set by the county not the state? That's how it is in the three states where i've lived. How is the demo changing? In what way?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Cool, thanks for the info. I'm assuming TX has a relatively low income tax then, because their schools sure suck. What about property tax? We pay a shitload here, so much that's it's changing the demographic throughout the city. I pay just slightly less, about 1k, than my parents in upstate NY, and their house is worth 300k more.mrussel1 said:
My point on colonial times is that unless you're part of a first family, you're an immigrant. It was a tongue in cheek comment. Now regarding your schools, I'm not saying that an immigrant population doesn't put a strain on schools, it may, but there's a strong correlation between the state income tax rate and the quality of the public education.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Didn't realize it was a biased think tank at all. The numbers seemed legit.mrussel1 said:
Considering the vast majority of the population did not descend from the colonists, I think it would be difficult to find an immigrant group that is a specific drain on the economy compared to other ethnic groups, in the long run. Of course there's a near term cost, but wouldn't a first year economic student call that an opportunity cost?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run is up for debate. Left says yes, right says maybe not.
Also the CIS is a well known anti-immigration think tank. The HHS is a governmental agency and likely produced a fairer analysis, particularly since it was a Republic administration.
I hear what you're saying but not sure you can compare colonial times to now with regards to immigration's affect on the economy. The reason it's up for debate is that the info out there is so skewed both ways- why isn't there some honest information so all can see if it's a gross plus or minus on an economy??
Personally my feelings towards immigration have changed dramatically since I moved to Texas. When I lived in NY it was a non issue, so I was like "what's the problem?!" Now that I spend 30k a year to put my daughter through private middle school because the schools are so shitty here due to how labored they are trying to bring Spanish speaking students up to state standards, I've learned to see it a whole different way. Would my 30k a year cost to give her an average education figure into costs that citizen's bare?
0 -
god i can't stand the 'you don't live in the US so your opinion is void' bullshit. if your country constantly portrays itself as a beacon for the world, and the place everyone aspires to be, and consistently fucks with the rest of the world's affairs, damn rights the rest of our opinions are just as valid as that of an american citizen.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Let's just agree not to respond to each other from now on. I see your comments/opinions as worthless as you see mine, but at least I live in the country of which I speak.PJ_Soul said:
I think it's been made pretty clear here that the perspective you're promoting is basically garbage. But to satisfy your curiosity, why wouldn't 1994 findings be different than they are today? Don't you have any concept of how much has changed in 24 years, with the economy, taxation, the job market, the cost of things, the population, salaries, social programs, issues that immigrants confront, international politics, etc etc etc? Nobody trying to prove a point about the present would ever purposefully post an article that old and expect anyone to take it seriously - its age renders it completely meaningless because the reader has literally no clue what if anything in it still applies. I mean, saying that immigration is immigration, why would things change is a weird thing to say... By that logic, we should consult the immigration records and related news from 1876 and proclaim that we understand today's immigration issues, lol. But you say you didn't purposefully post the very old article; I suppose I'll take your word for it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:PJ_Soul said:
That is from 1994, lol.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run.
"lol"
thats from the center for immigration studies- there's not much of a better, more unbiased source available out there.. Although Mrussel just said otherwise- I didn't realize it was biased. Do the work yourself, it’s a whole site for your perusal, very recent articles. I actually was reading a different one from May 22, 2018 but my phone spazzed out and so I posted the one above. You may find that the results that they’ve found haven’t changed much since the '94 linked one (obviously. immigration is still immigration, why would it?) Out of curiosity, why would you think that findings would be different today than then? California lost almost 280 million, Texas -130 million. Pretty much always a negative for the city.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Toronto Mayor John Tory urges federal government to assist with refugee crisis
https://globalnews.ca/news/4296846/toronto-tory-refugee-crisis-federal-assistance/?utm_medium=Facebook&utm_source=GlobalToronto
Give Peas A Chance…0 -
Are you joking?? That last part is the exact opposite of admirable, and reflective of a fair bit of ignorance.Ledbetterman10 said:
This is almost poetic. Read your comment out loud in an English accent. It's very dignified, and an admirable way to end an argument.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Let's just agree not to respond to each other from now on. I see your comments/opinions as worthless as you see mine, but at least I live in the country of which I speak.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
It's like speaking to an Israeli: until you come live here, you couldn't possibly understand our realities, and thus, your opinion is moot, and any inconvenient conclusions are false. I don't find it coincidental that both nations claim unique circumstances that should validate such exceptionalism.HughFreakingDillon said:
god i can't stand the 'you don't live in the US so your opinion is void' bullshit. if your country constantly portrays itself as a beacon for the world, and the place everyone aspires to be, and consistently fucks with the rest of the world's affairs, damn rights the rest of our opinions are just as valid as that of an american citizen.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Let's just agree not to respond to each other from now on. I see your comments/opinions as worthless as you see mine, but at least I live in the country of which I speak.PJ_Soul said:
I think it's been made pretty clear here that the perspective you're promoting is basically garbage. But to satisfy your curiosity, why wouldn't 1994 findings be different than they are today? Don't you have any concept of how much has changed in 24 years, with the economy, taxation, the job market, the cost of things, the population, salaries, social programs, issues that immigrants confront, international politics, etc etc etc? Nobody trying to prove a point about the present would ever purposefully post an article that old and expect anyone to take it seriously - its age renders it completely meaningless because the reader has literally no clue what if anything in it still applies. I mean, saying that immigration is immigration, why would things change is a weird thing to say... By that logic, we should consult the immigration records and related news from 1876 and proclaim that we understand today's immigration issues, lol. But you say you didn't purposefully post the very old article; I suppose I'll take your word for it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:PJ_Soul said:
That is from 1994, lol.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
It goes both ways though. Several articles available for your reading pleasure that say those findings aren’t entirely legit.Halifax2TheMax said:
Facts have no place in delusions of grandeur.mrussel1 said:
Often Reading posted this on the Trump thread, you may have missed it. It was before page 666.Ledbetterman10 said:
No big deal.dignin said:
I apologize for being pretty harsh. No need for it.Ledbetterman10 said:
Hey I said I read the article that HFD posted, thought it was interesting, but took it with a grain of salt.dignin said:
The point is stop being lazy. I've posted articles related to the benefits of immigration in this forum dozens of time of the years as have others. I searched out the info myself because I didn't need it spoon fed to me.Ledbetterman10 said:
Well you're not exactly adding much here are you? At least he provided something and left it up to me to give a shit or not to follow-up. And then HughFreakinDillion linked to a study about it that was a good enough follow-up for me.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Trump administration officials, under pressure from the White House to provide a rationale for reducing the number of refugees allowed into the United States next year, rejected a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues over the past decade than they cost.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html
https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
doesnt take a rocket scientist to know that immigration costs country’s and therefore taxpayers a lot of money. Whether or not it’s offset by an ESTIMATE of whether they’ll end up making the country or municipality money in the long run.
"lol"
thats from the center for immigration studies- there's not much of a better, more unbiased source available out there.. Although Mrussel just said otherwise- I didn't realize it was biased. Do the work yourself, it’s a whole site for your perusal, very recent articles. I actually was reading a different one from May 22, 2018 but my phone spazzed out and so I posted the one above. You may find that the results that they’ve found haven’t changed much since the '94 linked one (obviously. immigration is still immigration, why would it?) Out of curiosity, why would you think that findings would be different today than then? California lost almost 280 million, Texas -130 million. Pretty much always a negative for the city.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
It does.Ledbetterman10 said:
I just hate extremes. The illegal immigration extremes are....PJ_Soul said:
It's really just the difference between a narrow view and wide view... I think we all know which view is the best one.Ledbetterman10 said:
That's fair enough. After all, he didn't exactly have anything to back up his numbers. And yet, when HughFreakinDillion linked to a study that seems to be from credible source, I took THAT with a grain of salt. Why? Well I hate to admit it, but maybe I'm looking to be convinced of that someone like Meltdown is right about immigration. I guess I'm just on the conservative side of the fence on this immigration thing.PJ_Soul said:
Ledbetterman, If I were you I'd never take what meltdown says as an informed opinion. He has no real idea of how immigrants benefit the economy at the end of the day, and therefore just assumes they don't by looking at selective info from a biased position. Once he finds enough info to make it look like his preconceived notion is correct, he stops, and presents his conclusions in a way that makes some think it's an informed opinion.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Conservative: GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!
Liberal: We're all immigrants! Don't be a hypocrite.
I think the answers fall someone where in the middle.
Illegal.
Legal.
That is it.0 -
Yes, when you remove all empathy and humanity from the equation, it is that simple. Too bad that impossible in practice unless you're evil and/or a psychopath.unsung said:
It does.Ledbetterman10 said:
I just hate extremes. The illegal immigration extremes are....PJ_Soul said:
It's really just the difference between a narrow view and wide view... I think we all know which view is the best one.Ledbetterman10 said:
That's fair enough. After all, he didn't exactly have anything to back up his numbers. And yet, when HughFreakinDillion linked to a study that seems to be from credible source, I took THAT with a grain of salt. Why? Well I hate to admit it, but maybe I'm looking to be convinced of that someone like Meltdown is right about immigration. I guess I'm just on the conservative side of the fence on this immigration thing.PJ_Soul said:
Ledbetterman, If I were you I'd never take what meltdown says as an informed opinion. He has no real idea of how immigrants benefit the economy at the end of the day, and therefore just assumes they don't by looking at selective info from a biased position. Once he finds enough info to make it look like his preconceived notion is correct, he stops, and presents his conclusions in a way that makes some think it's an informed opinion.dignin said:
Wait? Instead of doing a little research to find some facts you settle for "the answer I kinda looking for", from a guy providing an uniformed opinion?Ledbetterman10 said:Meltdown99 said:
I fail to see how they help the economy? The Ontario government spends around 11000 per child to educate, Many of the asylum seeker have more than 3 kids ... 3 kids alone is $33000/ year in services ... these asylum seekers will never pay that amount of tax, not the mention the extra strain on our government run health care.Ledbetterman10 said:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance but again, I'm not following you. How do asylum seekers and refugees help the economy?HughFreakingDillon said:
economically.Ledbetterman10 said:
What's the benefit? I'm asking this seriously because I really don't know the answer.HughFreakingDillon said:
There always will be, but in the end the benefit outweighs it, if it's done right. why are they jamming all of these people in one of the most densely populated cities in canada?Meltdown99 said:Toronto faces having to close community centres, cancel programs to house migrant tide from U.S.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-faces-having-to-close-community-centres-cancel-programs-to-house-migrant-tide-from-u-s?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1530021674
Nah there no price to pay for illegal migrants...
And I made a point here to say "asylum seekers and refugees" because that's what the article says. Meltdown99, who posted the article, referred to it as illegal immigration, which is different.
Yeah this was the answer I kinda looking for. I think it's a stress on the American (or in this case, Canadian) government to provide for these asylum seekers. It doesn't seem like it helps the economy like HFD has suggested it does.
Yikes.
Conservative: GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!
Liberal: We're all immigrants! Don't be a hypocrite.
I think the answers fall someone where in the middle.
Illegal.
Legal.
That is it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help