Yeah, you're full of poop.No. They're here because their parents brought them. Deport the parents if you want but these kids are American in every sense but country of birth. The hardline "but its illegal!" approach is wrong and shortsighted imo.
This. It is up to Congress. Democrats ahd a chance now it is up to a Republican controlled Congress to step up and do their job. Obama had no business implementing DACA and Trump has o business continuing it. So his purported decision to end DACA is the right one. Let's see if our Congress can actually do their Constitutional duty.
Yeah, you're full of poop.
You know damn well NOBODY is gonna split up a family cuz then the kids would just be burden on the state.
You want the kids to stay because you know the parents have to stay as well. Just admit you like illegal aliens. Theres nothing wrong with that. Its OK. Don't bullshit us.
Not much of a deep thinker, are you? The stupid thing to do is to send them away after we've made an investment in them.
The US could easily get 20-something immigrants. That's not a problem.
I also don't get why people think the GDP figure the media put out means everyone here lost something. As a country grows in pop, GDP per capita declines. Natural resources beats service jobs.
So what?
Hopefully in 6 months we can get that wall up - just in time!
There are 10s of millions of illegals in the country. What is right is they not be here and instead come to the country legally, both they and their children, and then remain here legally. If you don't like that, change the law. Until the law is changed, they are here illegally and thus not in the right. You were talking about absurd and sinister...?
Hopefully in 6 months we can get that wall up - just in time!
sure, you enjoy your $10 lettuce.
Why are you using a conservative argument? This is basically what conservatives always argue when they say we can't pay fast food or Wally World workers more money. Even if it did, maybe the government can subsidize it like it does with certain crops or all the various public sector jobs.
Economics arguments are not conservative arguments, and an argument isn't right or wrong based on ideology. Labor costs as a percentage of tota costs for certain types of crops can be almost double that of the fast food industry and are much, much higher than that of Wal Mart. People can easily be wrong about the impact of labor prices for one and right about the other.
If you think it won't affect food prices say why.
Economics arguments are not conservative arguments, and an argument isn't right or wrong based on ideology. Labor costs as a percentage of tota costs for certain types of crops can be almost double that of the fast food industry and are much, much higher than that of Wal Mart. People can easily be wrong about the impact of labor prices for one and right about the other.
If you think it won't affect food prices say why.
Out of curiosity what's your position on raising minimum wages?
Saying it's going to be $10 lettuce and therefore making your burgers double or whatever is just as dumb as saying Walmart food prices would skyrocket if workers got several more per hour. You can go look at all the Huffpost etc. if you want, but I would think you would already know since this is brought up constantly in the news.
Even if it did, what's wrong? There are MANY jobs that get subsidized in various ways. If Americans don't like hard labor, then free market boost wages until satisfactory numbers work in agriculture, though agriculture isn't even big employer and has declined drastically with productivity increases. It's also likely lettuce weeding will get automated a little faster.
You didn't answer my question.
It's hard to see why decimating the labor pool for an industry and then subsidizing it when costs increase is a smart idea.
"If you think it won't affect food prices say why."
You're not getting $10 lettuce and double/triple price burgers. My previous response to the other person was about a number he just pulled out of thin air.
Yet allowing millions of Latinos (without scrutinizing their labor value) in the US who have babies at a higher rate than other groups is somehow a smart economic idea?
Why is subsidies apparently only bad to you if it's done for what you perceive as a minimum wage job?
Yet allowing millions of Latinos (without scrutinizing their labor value) in the US who have babies at a higher rate than other groups is somehow a smart economic idea?
In not too distant future, rural Republican areas will beg for anyone under 40 without a drug addiction to come live there.
Your "investment" argument is trivial.
lol It went over your head. Qatar? Norway?
ABC News Nightline ran a story about this a few nights ago. A teacher was an illegal and she whined about her predicament. If she was here legally, she would not be in where she is now.
Since she is a teacher, how about if some of her students did not want to do any homework yet they demanded to have good grades as other students that did? Or how some of her students became disruptive and then they complained about her as mean/heartless when she enforced the classroom rule?
Story - http://abcnews.go.com/nightline?cid=clicksource_4380645_footer_nightline
which is easily proven by the fact that they eventually refused to do this very thing when they actually had the power to do it. Grandstanding, power-hungry, know-nothing, incompetent gladhanders. elected to government on the premise that government doesn't work, so they set about not doing a fucking thing for 16 some years, blaming their failure and their supporters' miseries on "the others," and gladly shake their pals' balls and finger each other on a job well done. ...because their voters fucking love it.
Pussies, snowflakes, hypocrites and shitholes. the entire lot of them. People vote for these representatives, again and again, because these people hate themselves. I can't see it any other way. Republicans: a Confederacy of Cvnts. The entire party. All of them.