The “radical left, socialist, communist Democrats” brought you these.
Of course, MAGA supporters don’t want or need either of these “socialist” programs.
They want to be empowered, nobody telling them what to do, no taxes either.
Dang, government just takes away our freedom.
Time to turn in your ID cards.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
“Does it then follow that an illegal immigrant who is not harming anyone (and, according to numerous studies, a net benefit) should be allowed to stay? What’s the harm?
What’s the harm? They are violating federal law.
Let’s say I am not harming anyone, and a net benefit, but, say I drive without a license, without insurance, speeding at 145 mph on an empty road, and blew a 1.2 when I got pulled over by the cops. No one got hurt. Should I be able to walk without arrest, without penalty?
The penalty for crossing the border without authorization is expulsion.
“Does it matter to you at all that most studies show immigrants commit crimes, including violent crimes, at a lower rate than natural born U.S. citizens, or that illegal immigrants commit crimes at an even lower rate than ‘legals’?”
No, it doesn’t matter. Unfortunately, all of us have to put up with criminals, and more so than ever before since the stupid cop choked to death George Floyd when placing him under arrest for passing counterfeiting money and doing drugs – where force escalated once he resisted arrest and refused to take a seat in the police cruiser. Now that we have no bail laws, and regular downgrading of felonies to misdemeanors, as well as prosecutorial discretion out the ass, America is less safe (more safe than a year ago, but still less save compared to pre-pandemic).
How many crimes should illegal aliens be allowed to commit? They should not be here. We should not be letting non-citizens decide to add to our criminal case loads.
“It’s tragic, but has no bearing on the killings by ICE.” “
No, it certainly does. Why haven’t there been ICE killings in other locations – Texas, Florida, Louisiana … where there were prior surges? Could it be that they were generally able to arrest individuals on detainer in the county and city jails? Could it be that the governors in those states didn’t crap all over Homeland Security and encourage resistance and obstruction? Yes, just like the stupid cop who killed George Floyd when Floyd resisted arrest and refused to take a seat in the cop car, let’s see what criminal prosecution results for the ICE agents.
“And, mathematically, if you remove all illegals. The overall crime rate would actually increase,”
Agree. The percentage would go up but the number of people murdered would decline. Just think, if we allowed another one million illegal immigrants to come in, even though there might be people who commit 100 more murders, that would further lower the murder rate. Would that be acceptable, desirable?
Now, back to Trump, there is a common feeling that he delayed criminal charges and ran for President partly or mainly to stay out of prison.
No. The decision to prosecute and when to file charges were all part of lawfare, decisions by Democrats, intentional, designed to harm him, hamstring him, keep him preoccupied so that he would be unable to effectively run for office. As always, the idiot ass Trump responded in kind, with other lawsuits, that threw sand into the gears of justice, which already turn very slowly.
“I saw stacks of boxes with classified documents”
Agree. While Trump had a right to them, a right to remove them from the White House (as other Presidents had done before him), he should have returned them to the archivist when requested. But lawfare is proved by the disparate treatment of Senator Biden. Senator Biden was NEVER authorized to remove classified documents that were found in his garage. He stole them – lifted them from a SCIF. He had them in his possession for over a decade. Same for former Vice President Pence.
“In the matter of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, I’m sorry, but I don’t see your connection. No tit for tat. A government agency, at tremendous taxpayer expense, is disrupting business and education and more. People are suffering, now dying.
For what?”
It’s not a tit for tat. ICE officers should be prosecuted as appropriate. That doesn’t mean we should not enforce immigration laws. All of the current controversy, including the deaths of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti could have been avoided had the Minnesota and Minneapolis officials facilitated the transfer of criminal individuals who had ICE detainers. All of that could have been avoided had the state and city officials provided local police crowd control, the same as they would for a parade, a protest march, or if we had FBI agents attempting the arrest of someone on the 10 most wanted list.
Sorry, there is no reason for illegal immigrants to be here. Their desires should not prevail. Decisions on immigration are clearly set out as federal obligations in the original constitution. Those requirements have never changed. As recently as 2012, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in litigation with the State of Arizona.
Anyone allowed to come to America should be self-sufficient, or sponsored. The abuse of our asylum laws should be prosecuted. No one should be allowed to come to America and stay indefinitely unless they are sponsored and, unless they want to become a naturalized citizen, like my mom.
There are tens of millions of people in the world who want to come here and become Americans, just like you and me. I say, let those who can be productive, or who are sponsored, let them come here in accordance with our laws.
All others? Don’t come, and if you are here leave, or expect to be removed.
LikeLike
Here is the stupidity of Biden Administration actions and the Trump Administration response.
The number of U.S. House of Representative congressional seats is based on population. For this purpose, population includes illegal aliens. Sanctuary states and cities pass proposals to attract illegal aliens. As a result of the failure to remove illegal immigrants in the past, as many as 15 U.S. representatives are Democrats where, had we apportioned seats based only on the count of citizens, they would be much more likely to be Republicans.
Now it is the idiot ass Trump’s turn. They have not only shut down illegal immigration, they are headed to 0 legal immigrants by the fourth year of Trump 2. Between July 2024 and July 2025, 1.3 million immigrated to the U.S. during those 12 months (down from 2.7 million in the prior year), which included the last six of the Biden Presidency.
President Trump has shut down illegal immigration and curbed legal pathways to enter and work in the U.S. – such that between 1.5 million and 2.4 million fewer immigrants will obtain green cards during the Trump 2 presidency.
Progressive states who are losing citizens to other states, such as California (-229,077 net domestic out-migration last year), New York (-137,586), Illinois (-40,017), New Jersey (-37,428) and Massachusetts (-33,340), will be doubly harmed should the Trump Administration increase deportations by targeting sanctuary states and cities, such that, after the 2030 Census apportionment of U. S. Congressional seats, expect more than a full reversal of that Democratic advantage from illegal aliens.
ALL WRONG! AND TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT!
LikeLike
How does a state count the population of illegal immigrants for the purpose of congressional seats?
LikeLike
And yet Republicans are still in control in Congress.
LikeLike
“How does a state count the population of illegal immigrants for the purpose of congressional seats?”
The state doesn’t do apportionment, the federal government does following the Census.
The state DOES decide how to redistrict after a census. And, as the idiots in Texas demonstrated this past year, they also assert the ability to redistrict at anytime between Census determinations, should there be a shift in government control or a change in geography, or, because some idiot ass politician deems it appropropriate.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-use-redistricting-map-challenged-as-racially-discriminatory/
One analysis puts the number of house seats that should have been Republican not Democrat as 2, not 15. However, analysis tends to undercount the number of illegal aliens. No one really knows how many are here.
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/2/pgaf021/7985327
Should even one be allowed?
LikeLike
There isn’t a definitive number of illegals in the whole country. Estimates vary by millions.
I assume they can clearly estimate residents in a state, but how do they know how many are illegals?
LikeLike
Once more, with feeling:
“… I think America should remove all of the illegals and decide who should be allowed to come to America, and require sponsorship – so that there is no question that they are in fact contributing, not syphoning off assets from American taxpayers. …”
I don’t think non-citizens should be in a position to choose to come and live in America. That has been our law for over 100 years. Why accept those who would flout it 1 year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 40 years ago (the last time we had immigration reform).
Just because people came here and no one removed them in the past, doesn’t mean they should be allowed to stay. If we actually enforced the 1986 legislation, with civil and criminal penalties, with prosecution, the result would be obvious and instantaneous and bloodless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
LikeLike
I feel you.
The law is the law. No exceptions. Do you also feel a convicted felon should escape punishment because he received (almost) half of the votes cast for president?
I do not.
LikeLike
That sentence Trump got, “unconditional discharge”, no penalties, no imprisonment, no fines was specifically recommended by the Manhattan District Attorney who pursued the charges and achieved a conviction.
The fact that well over half of all Americans who voted cast a vote for him is what it is. So, your issue isn’t with me, it is with the courts and the American voters. The court could have fined him, could have sent him to jail for a week, or could have sentenced him to a week of community service or all three.
The other conviction, on inflating the value of properties carried a $500 MM fine that the judge threw out because no one was harmed.
The Manhattan DA had to revive issues that had already been discarded, finesse them into felony charges – something no one had ever done before – and bring it back from the dead by effectively ignoring the statute of limitations. This was lawfare, pure and simple designed to keep Trump from a second term in office.
Alvin Bragg was coordinating with folks on loan from the Biden Administration.
Trump’s decision to inflate the value of properties he already owned as security for additional loans would ring true as a felony if someone had actually been harmed, had someone actually lost money, had someone actually complained about his business practices – with respect to those loans. The fact that everyone willingly entered into the bargain, where the lenders could easily check on the properly valuation (if only by looking up the assessed value for tax purposes, takes less than five minutes), and reject the loan (or renegotiate its terms) if they didn’t feel the properties pledged were sufficient security.
This was also lawfare. Letitia James had herself campaigned to “Get Trump” https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/09/us/politics/letitia-james-attorney-general-campaign-trump.html
With respect to the tragic deaths of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti – my guess is many people can tell me their first names. Perhaps you can too.
Governor Walz: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-walz-says-minnesota-must-play-a-role-in-investigation-into-ices-killing-of-renee-good
Governor Newsom: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/01/27/governor-newsom-and-attorney-general-bonta-to-law-enforcement-local-and-state-police-have-authority-to-investigate-crimes-committed-by-federal-agents/
Governor Pritzker/Chicago Mayor Johnson: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/pritzker-johnson-minneapolis-shooting-alex-jeffrey-pretti/
However, my bet is you never heard of someone named Abraham – no less tragic.
How about:
7-year-old Ivory Smith?
8-year-old Maverick Martzen?
10-year-old Alex “AJ” Wise Jr.?
12-year old Jocelyn Nungaray?
17-year old Jamiel Shaw?
18-year-olds Taliyah Crochet and Rylan Oncale?
19-year-olds Anya Varfolomeev and Nicholay Osokin?
20-year old Mollie Tibbetts?
21-year-old Sarah Root?
22-year old Laken Riley?
23-year old Matthew Denice?
29-year-old Grayson Davis?
37-year old Rachel Morin?
44-year-old Police Officer David Lee?
47-year-old Melissa Powell and her 16-year-old son, Riordan?
70-year-old Robert Boles?
Along with Good and Pretti, all are tragic losses.
However, where were Governors Newsome, Walz, and Pritzker when it came to the others – and that is only a very small partial list? Why weren’t they out there ginning up crowds to seek out illegal alien would be murderers, rapists and other criminals? Why weren’t they insisting on deportation before one more citizen was harmed?
See: https://manofsteele.substack.com/p/the-letter-from-joe-abraham-that?
Or, how about these people – ever heard their names?
TABRIA A CARROLL
RANDY CURTIS
DOMINIQUE J POLLION
MELISSA B WIEDERHOLD
EDSHANIE WILLIAMS
ISAIAH A SANDOVAL
TRAMAINE A HAWKINS
CHRISTOPHER A PATTERSON
STANLEY COOK
CARLITOS ANTOINE M BANKS PEREZ
MARCUS ALMEDIA
I sure hadn’t. Perhaps Mayor Johnson knows the details.
LikeLike
AL LINDQUIST
Great facts Jack–a number of folks are learning a lot and their rebuttals seem a bit off key–keep up with the facts as they are greatly appreciated
LikeLike
“The fact that well over half of all Americans who voted cast a vote for him is what it is.”
Everything I’ve seen says 49.8%. Hardly a landslide and largely irrelevant anyway but it is what it is, sure.
“…a $500 MM fine that the judge threw out because no one was harmed.”
A vast oversimplification, but, sure, does it then follow that an illegal immigrant who is not harming anyone (and, according to numerous studies, a net benefit) should be allowed to stay? What’s the harm?
,You are correct, I have never heard of Abraham. Or any of the others on your list. Does it matter to you at all that most studies show immigrants commit crimes, including violent crimes, at a lower rate than natural born U.S. citizens, or that illegal immigrants commit crimes at an even lower rate than ‘legals’? It’s tragic, but has no bearing on the killings by ICE. And, mathematically, if you remove all illegals. The overall crime rate would actually increase, logically. It’s an emotional argument, but probably moot, since official crime statistics don’t account for all the unreported crime.
Now, back to Trump, there is a common feeling that he delayed criminal charges and ran for President partly or mainly to stay out of prison. And because he has a hard on for Greenland? But with my own eyes, I saw stacks of boxes with classified documents, and with my own ears heard him lie about them. I look forward to seeing him prosecuted at the end of his term, or sooner.
In the matter of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, I’m sorry, but I don’t see your connection. No tit for tat. A government agency, at tremendous taxpayer expense, is disrupting business and education and more. People are suffering, now dying.
For what?
LikeLike
“Undocumented immigration presents a net-positive impact on the U.S. economy in aggregate under most mainstream models, but significant distributional trade-offs, fiscal timing effects, and sector-specific vulnerabilities mean impacts vary across groups and policies. Widely cited empirical projections show that large-scale removal would shrink GDP and raise deficits, while legalization or selective high-skilled admissions tends to increase revenue and growth—yet questions about local fiscal burdens, short-term wage effects, and enforcement costs remain salient.”
Butt seriously, the economic question, I guess, could go either way. It’s complicated. I am certainly no expert, but the evidence does seem to favor net benefit even for illegal immigration. If ironclad evidence confirmed that…
‘large-scale removal would shrink GDP and raise deficits’, would you still insist on removal?
A lot or a little?
Asking for a friend.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt that GDP would be lower if every illegal immigrant was removed. Data confirm, for example, if you remove taxpayer provided Medical coverage for illegal aliens (such as in California), and GDP would decline – even though our annual deficits would also decline. Keep in mind that because we are spending $1 – $2 Trillion more a year than we are taxing, GDP is overstated.
The issue becomes who will do the work for the illegal immigrants who must leave and take their families with them back to the old country?
That’s were the added expense and potential savings show up.
Today, the US is heading towards a demographics-driven labor shortage because continued employment by Boomers was significantly impacted by COVID.
We have had a modest rebound in mariage and birth rates after hitting historic lows. But a lot of that is tied to the temporary surge in immigration because foreign-born populations tend to have higher marriage and fertility rates than the native-born population. Many of those US citizen newborn children would exit with their parents if forced to leave.
Labor force participation rates fell from 62.7 percent in late 2024 to 62.4 percent by the end of 2025 – a further decline … in addition to the 8 million people who left during pandemic times. The decline in the over-55 workforce is now both sharp and durable.
And, by 2030, every Baby Boomer will be at least 66 years old.
The only appropriate response? Stop paying people to stay home. That too will shrink GDP, unless people get out and get to work.
Work force participation rate, 2024:
20 to 24: 69.1%
25 to 54: 82.8%
55 to 64: 68.6%
Nearly all of the decline is tied to a smaller projected prime-age population (25 – 64), not to prime-age workers leaving the labor force at higher rates. The result is an economy with fewer producers and more consumers.
So, yes, let’s pump up LEGAL immigration. But, we don’t need any more people on the dole. We need people who can contribute, innovate, sustain themselves, be productive, raise American dynamism.
Or, if you prefer, we could ALSO accept otherwise ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS so long as they have an official sponsor who will be financially and legally responsible (back to the 1920’s requirements of sponsorship that applied to my mom when she came over on the boat in 1925). All the same laws and requirements (for employment) would apply – minimum wage, health coverage, etc.
LikeLike
Does this make any difference at all in your strong feelings?*
“President Donald Trump said in a social media post on Thursday that he is willing to exempt the agriculture and hotel industries from his nationwide immigration crackdown. The surprise move came after executives in both industries complained to Trump about losing reliable, longtime immigrant workers in immigration raids and struggling to replace them.
“Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,” Trump wrote.
He backed down, later. Makes one wonder who is really running the country.
LikeLike
Nope. Neither citizen nor non-citizen should be in a position to decide which laws must be obeyed and which ones can be ignored.
If you don’t want to prosecute the illegal aliens, that’s OK by me. At least aggressively prosecute their employers. Pursue civil and criminal penalties, including incarceration. And, that would include your Trump buddies who also want illegal aliens to stay when performing agriculture and hotel favoritism: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a
Trump is simply wrong. And his two-faced approach undercuts support not only on immigration but on most everything else. He is an idiot and an ass.
8 U.S. Code § 1324a(a)(1) makes employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful to hire. And, 8 U.S. Code § 1324a(a)(2) makes continued employment of an unauthorized alien unlawful to continue once their status is known.
So, the Supreme Court decided in a lawsuit by the Obama Administration that immigration enforcement was federal jurisdiction, not state, and that it was legal for federal officials to ask anyone to confirm their citizenship status.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-reinstates-arizona-show-me-your-papers-law-strikes-down-three-other
Similarly, from my perspective, it should be a crime, perhaps adding a new variant of abuse of office, where prosecutors assert that they have “discretion” to pick and choose which laws to enforce, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute that was accused of committing the same violation, or deciding not to prosecute individuals who violated a law they don’t like. That’s the essence of lawfare.
LikeLike
“Before accounting for taxes and transfers, the U.S. ranked 10th in income inequality; among the countries with more unequal income distributions were France, the U.K. and Ireland. But after taking taxes and transfers into account, the U.S. had the second-highest level of inequality, behind only Chile.”
Pew Research
Nobody’s asking for ‘total’ equality, but Adam Smith suggested that even the lowest paid laborer in a free market system should earn enough to provide all the necessities of life (obviously, otherwise you die) and ‘some’ of the luxuries. The free market in the U.S., compared to other countries, is distorted.
Wealth inequality is worse.
It’s not just that it’s ‘unfair’, it is dangerous and self destructive.
One way or another, there should be a minimum standard of living, both when working and in retirement.
LikeLike
My comments in italics: There is NOTHING WRONG WITH INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY!
Capitalism, even the kind practiced here in the states, has lifted more humans out of poverty than any other system where others decide on the allocation of income and wealth.
Per AI: “… Capitalism has been a major force in reducing global poverty, with the proportion of people in extreme poverty falling from roughly 94% in 1820 to under 10% in recent years, largely driven by market liberalization in China and India (BenefitJack Note: in other words, once China and India reduced government control over production, and their caste systems).
It boosts living standards through innovation, competition, and economic growth, though critics note persistent wealth inequality, environmental degradation, and that significant progress often requires, or occurs despite, government intervention.
Key Aspects of Capitalism and Poverty Reduction:
Historical Shift: Around 1820, nearly the entire world lived in extreme poverty, but the spread of industrial capitalism helped reduce that number significantly.
Massive Reduction: Over the last 20 years, capitalism has helped lift over a billion people out of poverty. In China, 680 million people were lifted out of poverty, with extreme poverty dropping from 84% in 1980 to less than 10%.
Key Drivers: Liberalized markets, property rights, and competition are seen as crucial for creating wealth and lowering prices, making goods more accessible.
Data and Critiques: Some argue that while the poverty rate has fallen, the definition of extreme poverty (e.g., $1.90 or $2.15/day) is too low, and many still live in “moderate” poverty.
Role of Governments: Critics argue that the most rapid poverty reductions, particularly in China, were driven by state-led industrial policies and social programs, not pure free markets. (BenefitJack Note: However, it was the government shift from communism in China to their own variant of capitalism which allowed emergence from poverty.)
Except for the infirm (those who are physically or mentally incapable of self support), every American can achieve and maintain a minimum standard of living.
All Americans need to succeed at that minimum level is commitment, effort.
See: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-biggest-fraud-in-welfare-c325638d?
See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-american-inequality-review-believe-your-eyes-not-the-statistics-11672095284?
See: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/another-wrong-way-to-measure-poverty-welfare-biden-fd9018b1?
LikeLike
“All Americans need to succeed at that minimum level is commitment, effort.”
I don’t have subscription to WSJ.
But my Dad told me “Anyone can grow up to be President. But everyone can’t. It’s math. Or logic. Or both.
Generally, in many developed countries, an unemployment rate between 4% and 6% is considered normal, indicating a healthy labor market.
In a healthy economy, workers are always coming and going, looking for better jobs. Until they find that new job, this jobless status is the natural rate of unemployment. Zero unemployment is unattainable because employers would raise wages first.
But what happens when unemployment hits 10%, as in 2009? (15% in Michigan, about 12% in California and Florida)
Commitment and effort can go only so far. There are just not enough (legal) jobs to go around.
“There is NOTHING WRONG WITH INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY!”
Up to a point. Total equality, or, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’, is not desirable, from anyone I’ve heard of, but extreme inequality is not either.
LikeLike
“All Americans need to succeed at that minimum level is commitment, effort.”
But my Dad told me “Anyone can grow up to be President. But everyone can’t. It’s math. Or logic. Or both.
Actually, anyone can grow up to be President – you just have to be born in the US and reach age 35.
Median tenure of American workers has been less than 5 years for the past 7 decades.
You ask: “… But what happens when unemployment hits 10%, as in 2009? (15% in Michigan, about 12% in California and Florida) …”
Obviously, that was the result of the Great Recession.
Who caused that? Our beltway idiot Democrats who resisted President Bush II’s efforts (and those of his Administration) during the period 2003 – 2006 to curtail the stupidity that was the housing market.
If you are old enough, you might remember Fed Chairman Greenspan talking about “irrational exuberance”.
One idiot ass, former Democratic Congressman Barney Frank who, when confronted with data that showed abuse in the home mortgage system by Fannie and Freddie and others, said, “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing” during a 9/25/03 House hearing regarding the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He was arguing against tightening safety and soundness regulations – favoring instead the expansion of mortgage credit to those who were not creditworthy. He also said: “I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC and OTS. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing”.
It surely wasn’t capitalists who triggered the Great Recession.
I am told that between 6 and 10 million illegal immigrants are employed. Obviously, there would be more legal jobs if there were fewer illegal incumbents employed in America.
LikeLike
“Actually, anyone can grow up to be President – you just have to be born in the US and reach age 35.”
But everyone can’t. There are, ballpark, 180 million Americans over age 35. Almost any one of them, with ‘commitment and effort’ can be President. But they all can’t. There is only one job. Math. Logic.
Doesn’t matter who caused the recession, or who or what you believe caused it, there are not enough jobs to go around, and thousands of people, even with commitment and effort, will go jobless, through no fault of their own. Math. Logic.
“Obviously, there would be more legal jobs if there were fewer illegal incumbents employed in America.”
Not necessarily. According to the CBO, immigration, including illegals, are a net benefit economically.
It’s complicated.
Like an arctic freeze caused by ‘global warming’.
LikeLike
But everyone can grow up to be president, you still have to win election. Everyone can’t be president, but everyone can grow up to be president. Donald Trump and I both grew up in America and both of us could run for the presidency. He got elected even though I didn’t vote for him.
More than enough jobs to go around if illegal aliens left and if we stopped subsidizing citizens not to work. When 1 of 3 people who are adult members of the labor force don’t work …
There are studies that confirm a net gain from legal immigration – especially those who bring skills and capital to America.
Not so much for illegal immigration. I have shared those studies here in the past. For example:
https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf
Too many studies look at all immigrants as a group – most forget to look at illegal immigrants as a subgroup.
LikeLike
“The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Taxpayers”
Prepared testimony of Steven A. Camarota
Director of Research
Center for Immigration Studies
“Federal Judge to CIS’ Steven Camarota: You Are Not a Credible Expert “
https://americasvoice.org/blog/judge-calls-out-camarota/
LikeLike
I’m not a voting expert either, nor is the judge.
For comparison, if you had Paul Krugman testify regarding the economic impact of illegal immigrants, a Nobel prize winner in economics, I would assert that while he is the preeminent expert in comparative economic advantage among countries, he is not an expert in identifying the cost benefit of illegal immigration.
Because he isn’t a voting expert – “Camarota is not qualified to explain the reasons for the change in data…or to insert assumptions into the record based on studies or academic literature regarding voter registration and turnout…he is not qualified as an expert in voter registration, voting trends, or election issues, so he is not qualified to opine on issues of causation.” – doesn’t mean he isn’t an expert economist in other areas.
And, of course, if you describe his group as an immigration “hate group”, by definition, those who believe in open borders will discount anything he says.
I am not a member of CIS, but, I am sure people who read my posts misread me as anti-immigrant, when I am pro LEGAL immigrant. I think America should remove all of the illegals and decide who should be allowed to come to America, and require sponsorship – so that there is no question that they are in fact contributing, not syphoning off assets from American taxpayers.
LikeLike
I know one thing… That there are a lot of things I don’t know.
I had never heard of Camarota or CIS.But its reports have been widely criticized and debunked by groups such as the Immigration Policy Center, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the CATO Institute.
May be CIS is right and the Congressional Budget Office* is wrong…
“An increase in immigration over the 2021–2026 period boosts federal revenues as well as mandatory spending and interest on the debt in CBO’s baseline projections, lowering deficits, on net, by $0.9 trillion over the 2024–2034 period.”
*The CBO report includes both legal and illegal aliens. It is, however, a 2024 (pre Trump) report. FWIW.
Another thing I don’t know, but just heard, is that many of the current ICE detainees are, in fact, not citizens, but are, or were, applying for citizenship in various stages legally, and are now suffering in, frankly inhumane conditions where Congress has not been allowed to monitor, and without access to attorneys. Has anyone else heard this?
Another thing I don’t ‘know’, but I believe, or reason, or even ‘feel’, if you will…
Slow down, you move too fast. You got to make the country last.
Too much, too fast. The current program (pogrom?) is literally tearing families apart, destroying business, education, the economy, and now literally killing innocent people. It is wildly unpopular. And, more importantly, IMHO, whether you believe Camarota or the CBO, it is probably self defeating. It will make our country WORSE off, fiscally, and culturally. ICE is also extremely expensive, diverting funds from other programs.
Temper justice with mercy. And common sense.
If you are still a stickler for the ‘rule of law’, start by moving that felon out of our White House and into prison. The world will thank you.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
LikeLike
Al Lindquist
of course like most programs you support they are heading toward bankruptcy–$37 trillion and counting– we should transition toward a TSP type plan like they have in Galveston, TX so young folks have their own plan with lots of restrictions like maybe a mandatory annuity for 30%-35% of assets once you retire-of course any money left when death occurs, like an IRA, is inherited.
the politicians and bureaucrats just hate that we might be able to provide for ourselves” you need us” a bureaucrat once told me–yeah, like I need a head cold.
Medicare I have no solution as I have only the “free” A– no B,– no D and no Advantage no AARP supplement. All I know is that bankruptcy would occur if this were in the private sector but friends seem to have good comprehensive coverage but my children and grandchildren will be another story.
LikeLike
There is no society on earth where individuals provide for themselves, that is a naive far right notion and one generally followed by Project 2025 and accepted by Trump by way of “empowerment” illustrated by his recent absurd idea for a great new health plan.
Neither SS nor Medicare is going bankrupt, but they need changes to adjust to changing demographics. And yeah, higher taxes too.
SS has worked for 90 years and Medicare for 60 years. I hardly think they are failures or not necessary. Or more importantly, that individuals could fend for themselves without either.
Government, our government, is not the enemy.
LikeLike