DACA

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

@doc

Still combining the state of the children with that of the parents.

I live in California, and in a part that has both crumbling infrastructure, overcrowded hospitals, and a large immigrant population. I am also in the tax bracket that pays more than I get back. I guess it is convenient to imagine I won't bear the cost of my position because it makes it easier to dismiss.

Why is it so offensive to accuse the anti-DACA position of feels, when you, not a handful of posts ago, said that acknowledging the emotional content of the pro-DACA position will be more convincing?

I don't think that an emotional aspect to reasoning is a bad thing, I just don't think it is the exclusive purview of the left.

And I also think there is a rational, non-feels ethical case to be made for DACA.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

There are loads of infrastructure problems in American, none of which will be solved with .002% fewer people. If we want to have a discussion about budgets, fine, but that is a different discussion.

They also won't be solved with the extra .002% more people, making that entire point irrelevant.

Might as well say our educational issues won't be fixed with 10% fewer basketballs - which is true, but they also wouldn't be fixed with 10% more basketballs, or any percentage more or less because basketballs are entirely irrelevant to learning English, math, etc.

How exactly are you suggesting illegals are related to our infrastructure?

I agree, the budget issue and the DACA issue are separate. I am glad someone finally agrees with me.

[doc_loliday]

@doc

Still combining the state of the children with that of the parents.

I live in California, and in a part that has both crumbling infrastructure, overcrowded hospitals, and a large immigrant population. I am also in the tax bracket that pays more than I get back. I guess it is convenient to imagine I won't bear the cost of my position because it makes it easier to dismiss.

Why is it so offensive to accuse the anti-DACA position of feels, when you, not a handful of posts ago, said that acknowledging the emotional content of the pro-DACA position will be more convincing?

I don't think that an emotional aspect to reasoning is a bad thing, I just don't think it is the exclusive purview of the left.

And I also think there is a rational, non-feels ethical case to be made for DACA.

I will combine the state of the children with that of the parents because that is what we are discussing. Also, you have been trying to counter my argument with logic based arguments, ie, you're trying to convince me that I'm punishing the kids, and I'm not. Vik made the emotion argument, cops to and I respect that.

Also, when you say removing the 0.02% population that are illegal immigrants won't help infrastructure it means you don't live in a state where the costs are borne, are unaware of the problem, or are being dishonest. I'm not sure how someone living in California who says they are aware of the problems that millions of illegal immigrants congregated in small areas would make a statement like that. It does not make sense to me.

[Speaker to Animals]

Taxpayers in the United States will face a steep bill if the Trump administration signs legislation to extend legal status to so-called “Dreamers,” the illegal aliens who arrived as children and are now protected under the Obama-holdover unlawful executive order known as DACA.

The cost of a legislation to legalize childhood arrivals is likely to be far higher than earlier attempts because of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies. The Affordable Care Act subsidizes the costs of health insurance for millions of Americans and would likely foot the bill for many of those whose residency in the U.S. would be legalized by the DREAM Act.

The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending.

That may come as a surprise to lawmakers. The last time the DREAM Act was seriously considered, the Congressional Budget Office said that the bill would reduce budget deficits by about $1.4 billion over the following decade. But that bill prohibited those it legalized from receiving subsidies toward health insurance until they became permanent legal residents after ten years, while the current version of the bill does not.

The DREAM Act of 2017, sponsored by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, would extend legal residency and a path to citizenship for at least 3.3 million people, according to the Migration Policy Institute. These include 1.8 million illegal aliens who would be immediately eligible, plus 1.5 billion who would become eligible in the near future by doing things such as enrolling in school.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... obamacare/


Well, that's just fucking fantastic. Is John McCain dead yet?

[doc_loliday]

How can you punish the Dreamers man?

[Speaker to Animals]

3.3 million fucking illegal aliens and most of them we have to pay for in every way.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I will combine the state of the children with that of the parents because that is what we are discussing. Also, you have been trying to counter my argument with logic based arguments, ie, you're trying to convince me that I'm punishing the kids, and I'm not. Vik made the emotion argument, cops to and I respect that.

Also, when you say removing the 0.02% population that are illegal immigrants won't help infrastructure it means you don't live in a state where the costs are borne, are unaware of the problem, or are being dishonest. I'm not sure how someone living in California who says they are aware of the problems that millions of illegal immigrants congregated in small areas would make a statement like that. It does not make sense to me.

.002%. Big difference.

But that point aside, there are millions of illegal immigrants, but there are less than 800,000 (by best estimates) DACA candidates, and they aren't all in one place. I keep trying to point out that all illegal immigrants are not DACA candidates, but it keeps being ignored. I am not sure what to make of this, but there it is. I will refrain from attacking the motivations of the people who keep missing this obvious point.

I am aware of the problems associated with millions of illegal immigrants. I am also aware that there is a rational, logical, ethical case to be made for the exceptional situation of DACA candidates.

It doesn't make sense to me that no one else seems to understand that difference. Vik has an emotional response to their unique case, so do I, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a perfectly rational reason to view (the proportionally small) DACA candidates as a special case, separate from illegal immigrants as a whole.

[Ph64]

There are loads of infrastructure problems in American, none of which will be solved with .002% fewer people. If we want to have a discussion about budgets, fine, but that is a different discussion.

They also won't be solved with the extra .002% more people, making that entire point irrelevant.

Might as well say our educational issues won't be fixed with 10% fewer basketballs - which is true, but they also wouldn't be fixed with 10% more basketballs, or any percentage more or less because basketballs are entirely irrelevant to learning English, math, etc.

How exactly are you suggesting illegals are related to our infrastructure?

I agree, the budget issue and the DACA issue are separate. I am glad someone finally agrees with me.

You said "infrastructure", I said " infrastructure", now you're saying "budget issue" as if they are the same thing.

Infrastructure in news-speak these days refers to highways, bridges, sewage/water systems, etc. When they say the US rates a "D-" in infrastructure that's what they are talking about.

Budget is an entirely different issue, which budget? Medicaid that .002% can have a large impact if they are claiming "free" healthcare benefits somehow. Same with education budgets in their locale (especially with large numbers in say SoCal). Increased crime could increase local police budgets. None of those things are related to infrastructure really.

Crafty move, switching words in the middle of things... You should work in the mainstream media, that's their specialty - crafting a narrative by selective use of language.

[doc_loliday]

What sense does it make to continue to quibble about a fraction of a percent when you're talking about a city that is 10% illegal immigrants and a state that is 7% percent? That's millions, all in one place. That's where the Dreamers are too. You keep spreading it out, which makes no sense.

And its not "DACA only", the 800,000 figure is also misleading. If you grant DACAs, or other forms of amnesty, which we will periodically do, we'll have illegal immigration forever. That's why it's not a "unique case." There would be far less "punishment", if the laws were enforced because fewer would come over, which is what is happening now.

[Okeefenokee]

Is Hannah still pleading for more cheap labor to cut her lawn?

She must be an obeast. In the olden days she could just get a strapping young lad to do it.