ImmortalOne

Beast Boy

@monsterstomp said:

Maybe I'm on Reddit too much lol, tons of people seem to hate him over there.

Unpopular opinion, but Ross.

Desperate official court papers detailing exactly what the report says is desperate as well, I guess.

Not like it was linked right in the article or even the OP or anything like that.

1. Let's go back and address YOUR 113 billion figure first, because that's pretty sketchy. I found several problems with it: first off, various economists have said that it's pretty difficult to calculate exactly just how much undocumented immigrants cost the US. Second, FAIR isn't the most credible of resources- and I find it difficult to believe that its estimate of $113 billion, which is pretty much the only estimate that implicates undocumented immigrants to such a degree. Furthermore, yes, undocumented immigrants may end up costing the US- but that's not an argument for saves to be made by deporting all 11 million of them. That's going to be pretty difficult and costly, if not impossible. Doing so would require massive government action, driving up spending.

Oh, and I'm not the only one with problems on how FAIR got their number; the American Immigration Council states that FAIR inflates the costs and misinterprets how much education and healthcare are going to undocumented children. I'm not going to list all their points, but I would suggest a read. Furthermore, FAIR doesn't incorporate how much America is going to be losing with deporting 11 million people:

• The costs associated with apprehending, detaining, and deporting millions of unauthorized men, women, and children would be enormous. A 2010 study by the Center for American Progress (CAP) “calculates a price tag of $200 billion to enforce a federal dragnet that would snare the estimated 10.8 million undocumented immigrants in the United States over five years.”
  

• In addition, the U.S. economy would suffer if millions of unauthorized workers, consumers, and taxpayers left the country.A 2010 IPC/CAP study estimates that removing all unauthorized immigrants from the United States and “sealing the border” to future unauthorized immigration would reduce U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent—or $2.6 trillion.

A more recent estimate of how much it's going to cost as well: $400-$600 billion

2. I... just cited and quoted 3 different studies to show that yes, that is how things work. I'll be glad to tell Berkeley, the Southern Economic Journal, and the Center for American Progress that they're wrong because you said so though.

3. Addressing the roots of why we're talking about NATO in the first place, it's all about the money. Trump claims that America spends "billions and billions" on NATO- but the figure is actually closer to $500 million. Looking at this as a matter of paying for what you own, the reason that America spends much more than the other NATO countries is because of its military actions around the world. The other NATO countries have no obligation to pay more because they're not engaging in American operations anyway. I actually agree that Europeans in NATO aren't paying their share- but the thing is, it's because they don't spend nearly as much as we do on military (which is something that Trump wants to increase), and they're pretty disillusioned with American military operations after the disasters in the Middle East. They're really not likely to just bow down to Trump. Even so, let's say Trump saves millions of dollars (which isn't much, considering the US spends $3.5 trillion annually) on NATO. Then, he scales up our military yet again. How much money are we really saving?

4. When we sent Kerry to China we weren't trying to implement a ridiculous trade tariff that was likely going to end in a trade war. Trump SAYS that he's going to force and bully the other countries to his will, but that's just not going to happen. He can have all the diplomats he wants go over to China or Mexico, but the inherent fact is, his goals aren't achievable because China and Mexico simply won't agree.

1. I linked it. Use your eyes. Far leftist? Nah, it was ABC news, which is actually pretty moderate on the scale, according to Pew Research Center

2. Immigrants usually represent a net gain for the jobs market actually. It's been extensively researched. Here's some links:

• Berkeley

In a study I conducted with Chad Sparber (“Task Specialization, Immigration and Wages,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1:3, July, 2009), we show that, due to the limited knowledge of the language, immigrants specialize in manual jobs. As a consequence, firms and sectors that hire immigrants generate higher demand for jobs requiring coordination, communication, and interaction — jobs that are typically staffed by natives, whose language skills are superior. This dynamic specialization according to skills pushes natives to upgrade their jobs to better paid, communication-intensive occupations and protects their wages from competition from immigrants. By taking the manual jobs that natives progressively leave, immigrants push a reorganization of production along specialization lines that may increase the effectiveness and efficiency of labor. A related line of research by Ethan Lewis at Dartmouth shows that, in markets with many immigrant workers, firms adopt techniques that are particularly efficient in the use of less- educated, manual-intensive workers. Hence, they are able to absorb a large number of less-educated manual workers without a loss in productivity and wages.

• Forbes/The Southern Economic Journal

According to an April 2015 symposium on the effects of illegal immigrants in the Southern Economic Journal, illegal immigrants actually raise wages for documented/native workers.

[...]

Why? The law of comparative advantage says we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English.

• Center for American Progress

Research shows that immigration will positively affect U.S. workers’ wages and employment. How can that be? While overly simplistic views of economic theory might suggest that wages will decline in the short run as the supply of labor increases, this is not the case with immigration for two reasons.

First, immigrants generally do not have a direct negative impact on the earnings of native-born workers, as native-born workers and immigrant workers generally complement each other rather than compete for the same job. Native-born workers and immigrants tend to havedifferent skill sets and therefore seek different types of jobs. Thus, immigrants are not increasing the labor market competition for native-born workers and therefore do not negatively affect American workers’ earnings.

To be sure, there are some instances when immigrants and the native born are similarly skilled and substitutable for similar jobs. Recent research has found, however, that firms respond to an increase in the supply of labor by expanding their business. Thus, an increased supply of labor as a result of immigration is easily absorbed into the labor market as a result of increased demand for labor, without lowering the wages of native-born workers.

Second, research finds small but positive impacts on native-born workers because of the indirect effects that immigrants have on the labor market and economy. As economists Michael Clemens and Robert Lynch explain in The New Republic, “In some areas of the economy, lesser skilled immigrants have kept entire industries alive.” This not only helps native-born workers within the industries but also native-born workers whose jobs are associated or closely connected to those industries.

3. That doesn't answer how Trump is just going to force other nations to pay more, and why we need to spend more only what constitutes over 50% of our budget.

4. So, no answers, just try to redirect like a coward. Yet again.

I stand corrected then. Either way, he's definitely a deceitful snake.

@sophia89: If "donaldjtrump.com" is where you're getting all your information, I can see why you support his idiotic plans. Nevertheless, I'll address your lazy cut and paste job.

Trump's plan is to basically hurt Mexico until it caves in and pays for his wall. Blocking remittances, imposing trade tariffs. But the thing is, Mexico won't pay for it. Trump thinks that he can just force China to be nice with tariffs. That's not going to happen either. Reuters states that if anything, it would likely just spark trade wars, crashing our economy because we depend on exports. Furthermore, it would disrupt various industries, such as the auto industry. Why is this more likely the case? Because it's already happened before. Heck, just read the whole article. It addresses basically everything wrong with his tariff plans.

Several expert economists in there as well. I would think that they know better than Donald Trump, who has no political or economic experience.

There's my "Y".

@sophia89 said:

Control our debt by saving 113 billion dollar annually.

Control our debt by bringing in more jobs for the unemployed; therefore getting the off welfare and into paying taxes.

Control our debt by making other Nato countries pay more for defence.

Control our debt by making better deals with other countries so businessmen would flock to the US.

1. Nope. Doesn't take into account how much illegal immigration actually contributes, not to mention the other economic benefits from taking jobs on the lower end of the rung.

Take Social Security. According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), unauthorized immigrants -- who are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits -- have paid an eye-popping $100 billion into the fund over the past decade.

EDIT: Oh an another thing: illegal immigrants aren't mostly people just jumping over the fence and fleeing into America. Most of them are people who came here with legal visas, but weren't able to renew them. The vast majority of them want to be contributing members to society.

2. Nope. Immigrants are taking the jobs on the lower end of the rung; multiple studies have proven that if anything, they actually provide labor for jobs that people are unwilling to take.

3. Wow, Trump is gonna "make" other NATO countries pay more. Then why is he planning on raising our already drastically high military spending? I think this point illustrates everything wrong with Trump. He says he's gonna do this. He says he's gonna do that. But in the real world outside of his skull, it just wouldn't work.

4. Nope. Trump has no diplomatic sense. If anything, he's only going to escalate trade wars. Not to mention his plan to you know, borrow and then renegotiate if the economy crashes because he's the "king of debt." Oh, and also his plan to print more money, which would undoubtedly lead to inflation.

*sigh*

Let me explain this to you.

Donald Trump is running for president. Donald Trump proposes that we do X. I cite Y to show you why X won't work. You say X will work, because Donald Trump said so.

That's circular reasoning. Bernie Sanders also has detailed reports on how he's gonna pay for his plans, but I know that if someone presented that to you you'd dismiss it offhand.