Trump vs Harris debate

Share your data on just illegal inmigrants.

Streets of Gold breaks it down between illegal immigrants (and their children) and legal immigrants (and their children). Both groups do well economically in this country. Neither is a burden. Both show high rates of upward mobility.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about improving our immigration system and that the laws are enforced. But it is not something that is hurting Americans.
 
I can't tell you why people whine and don't whine. I leave that to the shrinks. I can only share the data and analysis I've seen.

When people try to tell you that poor, uneducated people contribute more than they take you know they're full of it. This is basic reasoning skills.

There's a reason why most areas want to get rid of illegals, even blue areas.

You fall for so much bull****.
 
Streets of Gold breaks it down between illegal immigrants (and their children) and legal immigrants (and their children). Both groups do well economically in this country. Neither is a burden. Both show high rates of upward mobility.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about improving our immigration system and that the laws are enforced. But it is not something that is hurting Americans.

Your data is a book? How about a snippet on the stratification.
 
Your data is a book? How about a snippet on the stratification.

Here is an interview with one of the authors, where they talk about many things including the children the people who came in without papers but were covered by the 1986 amnesty.

https://immigrationlab.org/2022/06/16/streets-of-gold/

"The children in our modern data were born in the early 1980s, and so it is likely that many of their parents (even if they arrived without papers) were able to take advantage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), a law that granted amnesty to undocumented immigrants, giving them an opportunity to become legal citizens. As a result, most of the children in our data were raised by permanent residents or full fledged U.S. citizens, and likely had the opportunity to become citizens themselves. In this way, the modern data reveal what would be possible today for the children of undocumented parents if they had a path to citizenship.

We find striking similarities between past and present in many dimensions. For example, it also is true today that children of immigrants are more upwardly mobile than those who grew up in economically similar households with U.S.-born parents. And this is true of almost every sending country today, including poorer ones like El Salvador, Mexico, and Laos, just as it held across the sending countries of the past. Today, children whose parents came from Mexico or the Dominican Republic are just as likely to move up from their parents’ circumstances as were children of poor Danes and Swedes one hundred years ago.

How do we know this? To compare children from these two sets of low-income families, we first need data that links parents and children, so that we can pinpoint the family’s resources during childhood. For the historical data, we use census records to link sons when they were living in the family home to their status in the census thirty years later, when they had jobs. In the modern data, we use federal income tax data, which was assembled by the research group Opportunity Insights. This data allows us to link children as tax dependents in the 1980s to their own tax returns in the 2010s.

Why do many Americans have the wrong impression of this? Perhaps because they think of the past European immigrants with nostalgia and long-term perspective. Today’s immigrants are coming from all over the world and from poorer countries. The narrative is that those coming from poverty and very different cultures will remain poor. Many thought the same thing a century ago about Italian or Irish immigrants. Over and over again we see the same concerns about immigrants, just targeted at different groups."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[tw]1835438317883601083[/tw]

They are good for the economy! Just look at what happened in the 80s!!!
 
[tw]1835521524368814094[/tw]

Could you imagine if ABC actually fact checked Harris in real time. She wouldn’t know what to do and end up cackling the whole time.

It was obviously a rigged debate. Anyone with two eyes could see it. Now because of the pressure of this potential whistleblower ABC has to get out in front and fact check (week later).
 
“Eating ducks, eating dogs. I don’t know. I don’t know. I have seen there are police reports” (there aren’t btw)”

Semantics. There are 911 calls that didn’t result in investigation. You can continue down this path only believing what people are seeing on the ground. Theee aren’t exactly rabid Trump supporters here…
 
Imagine seeing all the footage about gangs taking over full apartment buildings, and saying “yeah but this is too much. I was fine with that, but a cat getting bbq’d or a goose getting beheaded from a park is too much. I can’t believe that. “
 
Imagine seeing all the footage about gangs taking over full apartment buildings, and saying “yeah but this is too much. I was fine with that, but a cat getting bbq’d or a goose getting beheaded from a park is too much. I can’t believe that. “

Okay let’s talk about the gangs then. Seems like a bigger problem anyways
 
Semantics. There are 911 calls that didn’t result in investigation. You can continue down this path only believing what people are seeing on the ground. Theee aren’t exactly rabid Trump supporters here…

It’s not semantics because she’s saying she’s read police reports that don’t exist. Why should I believe anything she has to say?
 
It’s not semantics because she’s saying she’s read police reports that don’t exist. Why should I believe anything she has to say?

I’m aware you’ll find holes in her argument to discount everything.

It’s more than likely she read something online that discussed 911 calls while at the same time broadly discussing police involvement.

Again, YOU WANT to not believe this so it’s your own confirmation bias (works both ways for sure) but I’ve seen enough first hand accounts of what’s happening to understand.
 
I’m aware you’ll find holes in her argument to discount everything.

It’s more than likely she read something online that discussed 911 calls while at the same time broadly discussing police involvement.

Again, YOU WANT to not believe this so it’s your own confirmation bias (works both ways for sure) but I’ve seen enough first hand accounts of what’s happening to understand.

I have no reason to believe what a random retard on tik tok says. So yea.. I’ll poke holes in it because it’s funny that it’s been two weeks and these MAGA idiots are still on this witch hunt.
 
And you have seen ZERO first hand accounts because no one’s seen any Haitian eat someone’s pet. Everything that’s been posted is a second hand account of what they’ve been told by a friend or seen on police reports (that don’t exist).
 
And you have seen ZERO first hand accounts because no one’s seen any Haitian eat someone’s pet. Everything that’s been posted is a second hand account of what they’ve been told by a friend or seen on police reports (that don’t exist).

First hand accounts being people on the ground talking about stray cat population decreasing - Seeing decapitated heads on the ground.

Then it takes a remdial understanding of the practicies of Haitains to understand a certain percentage of those brought here practice the same things.

I'm aware though - It smacks your sensabilities and make syou feel yucky. This is where your true blind spot emerges.
 
Back
Top