Immigration at a NET LOSS, why all the fuss?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

What? It totally is applicable. You don't have to have the ability to achieve net loss to make net gain applicable. A decreasing trend does not necessarily make the net negative.

If I make 93k a year after taxes, depreciation and amortization one year and 83k a year after taxes depreciation and amortization the next year, my net income is still positive! The trend is just negative, not the net.

Not ridiculous, you're merely ignorant to what you're talking about and in an effort to save face, you're arguing it to the ground. I have no sympathy for this. I'm not inclined to teach an adult who ought to know hot to learn for themselves by now.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Intentionally ignore this post ?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sounds like it.

a reply to: neo96

No. My reasoning falls in line with the quoted text in that post.

a reply to: METACOMET

They are talking about visas there.

Illegals don't have those.

originally posted by: Galvatron
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Addendum: The OP even says "why all the fuss" in the title. Suggesting that because there has been some exodus, that we should be all hunky dory about letting in more to turn that around?

You can blame the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 for that. It was a bipartisan bill signed into law by GWB. If you want the US to boot those kids right back out of the country, then it will take an act of congress. Otherwise, Obama is simply following the law.

Furthermore, on Obama's watch, there are more border agents than at any time in the past. Obama's border security budget is $3.2-Billion; a whole $1-Billion more than any previous administration. Obama is deporting record numbers of illegals. What more do you expect?

Sheesh...and Palin is calling for impeachment because of Obama's lack of securing the borders. What a joke!

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Why blame Bush here eh ?

What those kids are 'victims' of sex trafficking ?

If they are victims of anyone it's bad parents.

a reply to: Galvatron

Alright, let's make this easy. You say a net is impossible, and that using the term is propaganda.

You then say that anything over 0 is a positive. Let's roll with that.

So we're at a positive number.

Agreed.

There still exists illegal immigrants in this country.

Can we agree that this "out of control" nonsense is vastly overblown?

Can we agree that the inflow has subsided in recent years, yet that in no way matches the focus on the issue in recent years?

I'm not understanding what the deal is here.

The issue is not only not "out of control", but rather, self resolving over time, best I can tell.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Palin is an idiot and so was bush. Obama is too. If you read my posts in other threads you'll realize that I am massively disillusioned with both parties. I am sorely anti-Bush, and currently very anti-Obama. There are less than a dozen politicians in the country at the Federal level who I might actually agree with. Lets not even get into the trust thing. The last 3 presidencies have done more to subvert our formula of success than few other people.

Political parties, as they are now, are the bane of this country.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Never said a net is impossible. I said net loss is, because like you said, you can't have negative illegal immigrants. I said the time qualifier is the propaganda.

Can we agree that this "out of control" nonsense is vastly overblown? Can we agree that the inflow has subsided in recent years, yet that in no way matches the focus on the issue in recent years?

And you ate the political agenda set by that time qualifier, hook, line, and sinker.

a reply to: Galvatron

What agenda? I didn't see this in any other way than it was.

I didn't magically imagine that there was no illegals here because of a "NET LOSS". The term was used by me, in my reasoning, exactly as it is. An overall lessening in numbers on a yearly basis. Call that what you will, but it's not a distortion of the truth.

a reply to: jrflipjr

It's one thing to have regular immigrant patterns modeled on legal entry - it's another to have 60,000 kids flocking to get in and accept them without conditions or legal responsibilities.

That's a great distinction between the two processes. Its so odd to me that in the 1900's the PTB had Ellis Island and an extremely efficient system for processing Immigrants into the US and that the administrators of that system had a great health screening system. The Ellis Island records are still in use today for extensive research.

Apparently that system has become something of a lost technology.

a reply to: neo96

Neo, it seems like your problem is that whatever is happening isn't happening fast enough, or isn't politically alligned with GOP talking points.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

To suggest a net loss given the time qualifier in the OPs thread starting post sets the propaganda that the issue isn't so bad, when in fact it still is. You said yourself it doesn't seem so bad, suggesting you buy the premise.

It doesn't iron itself out over time. It has just had a negative trend over the last 4 years because individual states have introduced some laws and the economy has been decidedly below average. When the money is easy, you'll see illegal immigration spike again, when the money isn't to be had, you'll see another exodus.

Lets not even get into the tax burden of such a large migrant workforce, lets not get into the societal impact, all the ancillary stuff that doesn't seem important but ends up being drivers for very important things.

a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Sorry.

The problem here is that some people are bad at math.

And think that 10-30 million ILLEGALS in this country doesn't seem to matter.

a reply to: neo96

STILL more people coming across that border than get sent back.

No, there are no stats that prove this to be the truth.

NET LOSS immigration.

Yes, there are 10 million here, that needs to be dealt with. Mexicans are NOT coming to American in droves. At least not anymore.

~Tenth

a reply to: Galvatron

Can you show me when a time qualifier is not used for a "net loss". Are "net losses" generally not qualified by quarterly, or annual reports?

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Net immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has stopped and possibly reversed since 2010.

WHAT net loss?

From my first post:

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), different estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants vary depending on how the term is defined.[11] There are also questions about data reliability.[

Those that are pushing a 'net loss' ?

Is wishful thinking.

Because the so called trend is backed on nothing but a 'possibilty' which means that is subject to change.

Then figure in how 'illegal immigration' is defined.

Then figure in questionable data 'reliability'.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: NonsensicalUserName

Sorry.

The problem here is that some people are bad at math.

And think that 10-30 million ILLEGALS in this country doesn't seem to matter.

Because it doesn't matter.

A country is as strong as its human capital. There is no distinction made as to how that capital is obtained, only with what you do with that capital, once you have it.

As far as I'm concerned, the US is currently blowing the biggest 'boom' of their history.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I'm not going to hold your hand on this or get dragged into an off point argument.

a reply to: Galvatron

Then I will, instead, inform you that analysis always has a starting and ending point. This is time based. If not an arbitrary slice, ie quarterly, yearly.. then from start of endeavor to it's closing.

There is no starting and ending with immigration. It's not feasible.

There is, however, a means to measure the data of flow incoming vs outgoing from an arbitrary slice. The whole point of doing this for recent years, is to counter the obvious propaganda that is the borders being, "out of control". It's ludicrous.