Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
107 online now:
CosmicChimp, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo (6 members, 101 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,286 Year: 6,398/6,534 Month: 591/650 Week: 129/232 Day: 14/54 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   CATO Institute had a big IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL IDENTITY survey, April 27, 2021
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6837
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 16 of 137 (888172)
09-08-2021 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 2:35 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
Bigotry haunts our forum once again, thanks to you.

Yes, I can see where it is all so seemingly logical and supportable.

If we were looking for a viable example of the insidious nature of american racism we know where to look.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 2:35 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 5:53 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 137 (888173)
09-08-2021 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
09-08-2021 3:20 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
1st and second generation immigrants are the strongest supporters of what you just bashed.

I have been at work all day, while posting, and I could not spend too much time on the straw man b.s. from dwise and Percy.

They are ignorant amateurs on the immigration issue, and they have no clue about how to get past the multi-decade one million immigrant limit per year. I have read the polls for ages and I understand the glacial-speed tar pit craw that has to be dealt with.

Straw man crap aside (the dishonest "response" to my supposed views), dwise foes not understand that illegal immigrants are not the issue. To the extent that Percy and dwise understand that Americans have complaints about overall immigration level, then they can understand that the case can be made that all first generation Americans pay more in taxes than they get in benefits. It is the benefits available to second generation children that cause problems with public opinion.

CATO plays up the net benefits 2nd generation immigrants bring, net "public charge" micro (economic) issues aside, but admits there is a major p.r. problem and the frustration with the pro immigration side begs for a solution.

I am in favor of an immigration tax (1st gen Americans starting sometime in the future).

I oppose barring immigrants from public social program benefits, but most 1st gen immigrants are already subject to such restrictions. I oppose the restrictions already on the books, but for Percy & dwise, it is enough for them to just be aware of the status quo. I bet they had no clue about the law, in addition to the public policy/ public opinion rut.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-08-2021 3:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2021 8:28 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 09-09-2021 11:56 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-09-2021 3:39 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 18 of 137 (888174)
09-08-2021 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AZPaul3
09-08-2021 5:28 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
I have no problem with immigrants getting public services.

I oppose requiring sponsors of relatives to sign off on paying the bill if their sponsored relative uses public programs.

(Most immigrants ARE effectively barred from public services, NOW)

Why dont you Google "public charge".

First generation immigrants support higher immigration levels and barring immigrants from public social programs. They are the biggest supporters of such.

You are ignorant of the law.

You are ignorant of public opinion.

I was not even expressing my opinion. I was describing objective facts about both current law and public opinion.

Idiots


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-08-2021 5:28 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 19 of 137 (888175)
09-08-2021 5:57 PM


It is ignorant amateur hour, so readers of this thread beware.
Be very careful about reading the posts in this thread.

These idiots have never heard of the PUBLIC CHARGE laws already on the books.

I can easily tell.


  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5199
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 20 of 137 (888176)
09-08-2021 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 5:47 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
Wow! You go almost immediately into vicious ad hominem attacks based on your inability/refusal to read what we have actually written or a tactic of misrepresenting us whom you have immediately identified/misidentified as opponents. A sure sign that you feel threatened.

You are truly a legend in your own mind.

dwise foes not understand that illegal immigrants are not the issue.

Nor did I say that they were! I was referring to a past discussion which did concentrate on the false anti-immigration argument that illegal immigrants were draining the economy through received benefits (¿what benefits?) without paying back into the system (eg, "without paying any taxes").

That example demonstrates how false such claims are. And there's no difference between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants that I can see except that legal immigrants/visa carrying foreign workers are not driven into the dark economy, plus they will be issued valid tax ID numbers and so can file income tax returns and get a refund, which illegal immigrants with fake SSNs cannot do. On top of that, legal foreign workers also pay payroll taxes (FICA: Social Security and Medicare) which they will never qualify to draw from.

And OBTW, most of the complaining that I've seen from the anti-immigration side's claims of illegal immigrants (the primary population that they oppose) not paying taxes concentrate on income taxes. If those workers were to file income taxes, being low-income would place them in the lower 50% (income < $43,600) which The Wrong's (AKA "the Right") own propaganda identifies as being 12% of total income and 3% of income tax revenue. And if we were to break down that lower 50% into further income sub-ranges, we would undoubtedly find income tax loss from the poorest of workers (in which illegal immigrants would be fall) to be less than 1% of income tax revenue.

But income taxes are not the only taxes. For example, even renters pay property taxes, albeit indirectly through their rents (so attempts to classify 2nd generation immigrants (some of whom are citizens by birth) as leeching off of society because of public schools are no different from the children of "non-immigrant" families who also pay property taxes indirectly through their rents). But what really hits the poor percentage-wise (same metric as progressive income tax rates) are consumption taxes which include sales tax, gasoline tax, etc. Almost every single dollar earned by the poor must be spent just to provide the basic survival needs (whereas only a small portion of the riches' incomes must be so spent), so the greatest burden on income by percentage is born by the poor.

 
From your Message 14

The real issue is American voter perception though.

Precisely!

So many of them are being fed gross disinformation (plus some dezinformatsia). That is why I am arguing to dispel that disinformation.

 

I am in favor of an immigration tax (1st gen Americans starting sometime in the future).

What the hell is that supposed to be about? What possible purpose is it supposed to serve? What possible problem is it supposed to address?

And just how the F**K are you supposed to be able to impose and administer such a tax? Especially if your intended targets are the illegal immigrants who are, by their very nature, very difficult to track down and collect from. As the Germans taught me decades ago, "Hier geht nichts ohne Papier." ("Here, nothing works without paper.")

So then just what the F**K are you talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 5:47 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 9:27 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 9:40 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 21 of 137 (888177)
09-08-2021 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
09-08-2021 8:28 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
To YOUR credit you did not make the disgracefully pathetic accusations, like Percy and Arizona's Finest did. Their accusations are easily seen as false; so easy that I should continue to ignore the most offensive part.

What I should not drop is a challenge, starting with the Arizona one, which demands a sentence by sentence examination of my post 12. The challenge should be for his sweet self to tell us which line, in my post 12, is a factual statement, free of opinion, and which was an actual opinion.

My response to your post 20 is:

to point out that I had nothing to do with your past immigration discussions here.

Illegal immigrants are less than 25% of 1st generation immigrants.

(I have no idea if they want to remain here long enough to become Americans, but we have about 46-47 million immigrants residing, and 10 to 11 million illegals residing)

Only 10% use fake social security numbers ( I had to look that one up. I assumed the number was more like 1% of illegal immigrants that use fake SSNs)

That means around 2% of first generation Americans use fake SSNs. (Looks, to me, like you used an anti immigration tactic!)

Stop blowing up the proportion of immigrants who use fake SSNs.

(Are you some kind of racist right winger? Those prejudices are just awful.)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2021 8:28 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 137 (888178)
09-08-2021 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
09-08-2021 8:28 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
(Post 21 ended with a joke, incase nobody saw the irony)

My immigration tax is something 1st generation immigrants would want.

Only 30% of Americans support allowing future immigrants to buy their right to live and work here.

($10,000 was the amount. CATO said that the poll numbers did not change when the amount was raised to $50,000)

But 46% of first generation Americans support it.

They support it because they do not want to see future immigration-seekers loose opportunities to come here.

(Think of how every immigrant we ALL have known is scared to death to say anything critical of the United States. It is a fear that the angry American public will react with a reduction in future immigration. This CATO poll shows that a slight majority of Americans would deport any immigrant that calls the United States a racist country. 42% of Democrats support deportation for immigrants calling the USA racist)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 09-08-2021 8:28 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 23 of 137 (888179)
09-08-2021 10:29 PM


My "second generation immigrants" should read second generation Americans.
I did not notice that stupid mistake. As we all know, every person born here (per 1886 Supreme Court) is a citizen. I hope I did not confuse anybody by my glitch.

(I only noticed my own mistake when I just re-read dwise's post 20. I am the one responsible for his confusion. I am guilty of some crappy word choices.

(CATO shows us that about 60% of Americans want to keep birth right citizenship, but 60% of Republicans want to strip citizenship from the 2and generation Americans)

(Editing NOTE. Cato used the term "second generation immigrants" in polling categories, but explained the idiosyncrasy at the beginning. That is where I got the screwed up term)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 24 of 137 (888180)
09-08-2021 10:52 PM


Republican support for higher immigration levels up 150% with $10,000 fee.
CATO showed that 47% of Democrats supported higher immigration levels, 21% of independents, and 11% of Republicans.

Total raw support for higher immigration levels is 29%

(The issue is more complicated, as polling suggests, but leave it at 29% for now)

A question was then asked if future immigrants would be allowed to live and work here if they paid a $10,000 fee.

31% of Democrats said yes.

28% of Republicans

30% of independents

53% of libertarians

COMBINED TOTAL of all Americans was 30% "yes"

But the the total would be at 37% of all Americans if Democrats held steady at 47%. And the support would be at 44% total IF Democrstic support shot up in a 17 point fashion, like the Republican support did.

Then we could suddenly see a situation where much higher immigration levels are very possible. The question did not comment on allowing citizenship, mind you.

(There are other polling questions that got even more promising answers which indicated that higher immigration levels are possible with radical reforms to immigrant's right to social support programs)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 137 (888181)
09-09-2021 1:14 AM


My best effort to get a point across ( to the difficult) Yes, poll question results c
There will be 2 polls.

First poll question is:

Do you favor or oppose allowing immigrants to receive government financial assistance & services?

All Adults 47% support 53% oppose

1 Gen Immigrants 68% support 31% oppose

2 Gen Immigrants 57% support 42% oppose

3 Gen Immigrants 42% support 57% oppose

Native Born Not 2nd Gen 42% support 57% oppose

Democrats 70% support 30% oppose
INDEPENDENTs 41% support 58% oppose
Republicans 22% support 78% oppose

Whites 40% support 60% oppose

Blacks 64% support

Latinos 76% support

Asians 61% support

Now the racial divide, will throw a curve ball. Pay attention!

1 Gen by race:

1 Gen Whites 63% support

1 Gen Latinos 76% support

1 Gen Asians 68% support

2 Gen by race:

2nd Gen Whites 44% support 56% oppose

2nd Gen Latinos 70% support

2nd Gen Asians 68% support

3rd generation by race:

3rd Gen Whites 39% support 61% oppose

3rd Gen Latinos 43% support 57% oppose

3rd Gen Asians 48% support 52% oppose

Do you all see that?

(Black immigrant samples are too small to measure)
(Asian and Latino immigration samples were oversized at 300 each to get vital details from the massively important segments of our society. They were scientifically scaled back to proportion to fit into the larger polls without distortions of the total American body)

So how did the poll manage to show nearly half of Americans support welfare for immigrants when post-2nd-generation Asians, Latinos, and Whites oppose the benefits being available?

The answer is that first & 2nd generation Americans are 26% of the population of the USA. Then there are the Democrats...

(Sad story coming in the next post)


  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 26 of 137 (888182)
09-09-2021 1:26 AM


Democrats become the opponents of higher immigration (read post 25 before this)
Democrats looked heroic previously. 70% supported benefits for immigrants that the rest of us get.

Awesome for immigrants, right?

Not so fast!

POLL QUESTION:

Would you favor or oppose increasing immigration to the U.S. if immigrants had to prove before entering that they would not use government welfare services?

All Adults 58% support

Democrats. 47% support

Independents 58% support

1st Generation immigrants 67% support

2nd Generation immigrants 53% support

Native Born. 58% support

Democrats become genuine stoppers of the future gains in immigration levels.

And this is supposed to be the party that supports immigrants?

In this sad world, this is just too sad.

(Where did Bidens promise go? He said we could bring in alot more immigrants per year beyond the 1 million that never budged up in many decades)


  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19771
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 27 of 137 (888189)
09-09-2021 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 5:47 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
LamrkNewAge writes:

I have been at work all day, while posting, and I could not spend too much time on the straw man b.s. from dwise and Percy.


And yet you had time to respond to THEM in a post directed at ME.

And you also ignored what I posted. Here it is again:

ringo writes:

LamarkNewAge writes:

More Republicans than Democrats support higher immigration levels if the public charge issue is addressed.


Sounds like a cop-out. "Sure, I'd support abolishing slavery IF there were jobs for the freed slaves."

My point being that the Republicans have a big IF in their support: IF it doesn't cost anything. So their "support" doesn't mean anything as long as there is a perception of cost.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 5:47 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20988
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 28 of 137 (888190)
09-09-2021 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 2:35 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
LamarkNewAge writes:

Percy writes:

Do you really want to make your prejudices and ignorance this self-evident?

Did you go to the polling page I sent you to?

The views you expressed are prejudiced and ignorant. Polling showing the views to be widespread can't change that.

A hundred and sixty years ago polls would have shown the vast majority of the country, both North and South, to be prejudiced against blacks. That wouldn't have made racism okay, just widespread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 2:35 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20988
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 29 of 137 (888191)
09-09-2021 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
09-08-2021 5:47 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
You're in effect saying, "I'm not bigoted or ignorant - I only feel this way out of pragmatism." Obviously you're convincing no one, especially by arguing for punitive policies like benefit moratoriums and extra taxes.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-08-2021 5:47 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-09-2021 8:22 PM Percy has replied

  
LamarkNewAge 
Suspended Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 30 of 137 (888196)
09-09-2021 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-09-2021 3:39 PM


Re: The INVERSE RELATIONSHIP rule among public immigration level support.
Show where I called for benefit moratoriums.

You have been screaming for years about the "problem" of illegal immigration. And the immigrants were clearly, in and of themselves, the problem, to you.

(You seem to be happy with 1 million per year immigration levels.)

You ignore the fact the 45 million immigrants, PRESENTLY RESIDING, strongly support giving up what little (if any) public benefits are available, for higher immigration levels.

(I am personally conlicted on the tradeoff, but I should probably defer to the 67%, of the 46 million immigrants, who support such a policy)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-09-2021 3:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Percy, posted 09-10-2021 10:01 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022