Id rather go bankrupt 7 ish times and have 4-7 billion dollars than just some pocket change

Non hispanic naturalized whites, non hispanic naturalized blacks, non hispanic naturalized asians... you know, subsets of a population? The literal definition of demographic?

It's a difference of like 8-12 percentage points between those populations and the illegal hispanic immigrant population.


They're cheaper in every industry, not just farming. Rising rates of illegals working service and office type jobs (as indicated by an article previously linked by you) also shows that illegals aren't necessarily more unskilled than your average unskilled American worker (surprise surprise, didn't see that one coming) (yes, 180,000 in 5 years isn't a huge terrible

Yes, I know farming is seasonal work. I have a history of doing farm work. Frankly, though, I don't understand your point? You put fruit in freezers so if you don't have the labor to maintain a large farm operation when farming actually has to be done then somehow nothing changes because thank god magical freezers replicate fruit nowadays?

*Sigh*

Open job positions =/= people magically coming to fill them. Certainly not people who live in the city and are looking for a comfortable white color job. Removing 5% of the labor force (regardless of wage or demographic) simply removes productivity. If people currently not in the labor force wanted to work, then they'd be literally be accounted for in the labor force through unemployment rates. So, just because there's this awesome farm job half an hour outside the city doesn't mean the near 40% of the country that isn't interested in a job will jump on the opportunity just because its there. I'm sure there are some people who will notice clear job opportunities and decide to reenter the work force, but I sincerely doubt it will make up for the 5% mass exodus nationally (including the ~9% mass exodus in some of the country's most productive states, i.e. California).

And so, there's a lack of labor leading to lost productivity and economic downsizing, especially in previously mentioned industries where illegals are grossly overrepresented.

In industries where illegals make up some 20-25% of the labor force, they'll have to restructure to make up for the lost productivity and raise prices because of supply shock (this is potentially long term and structural all across multiple industries, not a flood taking out bananas). It's doubtful the economy will crash, but things like food prices will rise substantially. You could try to stop eating the corn and eat meat instead, but the meat factories are effected too. So people deal with a raise in grocery bills.

Not sure about you, but my family likely would not be able to handle even a 15% raise in the price of grocery products. We'd have to stop paying the electrical bills.

So, Americans are unnecessarily effected and have to live paycheck to paycheck where they otherwise wouldn't just because some asshole thought it would be a great idea to deport the illegals and find solutions to the obvious economic outfalls later.

We can keep going into construction (another necessity of every other industry in the nation) but I'm not sure that's needed.

Wage doesn't even have to be a factor in that scenario.



Just as an aside, let's not forget how much it would cost to track down 11 million people and put them on a truck/bus/raft/plane/zipline/magical carpet back to whatever central american country they came from.

This coming from the guy that says he also wants to lower taxes AND pay off the debt in something like 10 years. Trump really fails as basic math, doesn't he.


A 3% rise isn't outstanding, but it does indicate that the idea that illegal immigrants are lowly useless laborers is probably false. They can be just as skilled as American workers in aptitude and capability.

The funny thing is, if we gave them a clear path to citizenship and made their kids citizens, we could normalize their graduation rates in a generation.


1.) I'll concede this one just for the sake of not throwing shit around, but you can probably sense I don't feel its appropriate to be as heavy handed on this issue as you are.
2.) This is less indicative of their capability than their situation. We could fix this over the course of a generation or so by providing opportunities to them and their children.
3.) In terms of economic stimulus, yeah, you're right. But they're also the backbone of our agriculture, construction, and low skilled service jobs. So, without them the entire country would be indisputably worse off in terms of productivity in those industries (the population isn't infinite)
4.) I agree, this is a problem. They should definitely be allowed protection of our labor laws.
5.) Yup.

Yeah, overall they obviously aren't the gold standard American or anything, but many work hard in their own right and the benefits of their labor force and productivity in some of our absolute core industries (that effect every single resident in the country) is clear. The benefits of their economic contribution (in terms of the production of real assets, don't sidestep this with economic stimulus) outweighs their social and job market negatives for legal residents.


Again, an infinite population of willing workers isn't going to come out of the woodwork just because we deported 5% of our labor force. Some people will probably come out and work again, but there's no good reason to believe they'll fill that entire gap (again, especially in previously mentioned industries like agriculture, construction, and low skilled service jobs).


: (

I didn't realize you went through something so tragic


Yeah but really, that's obviously not the scale of what would happen here. This isn't some environmental disaster directly destroying assets, but is striking ~7 million people from the work force.


It'd be boring if you agreed straight up, but courtesy is a thing too :<

In any case, yeah it's subjective. It's silly to me that by the time a naturalized immigrant becomes a citizen (which can take three years in some of the best case scenarios), they know more about US history than your average US citizen. It just seems like a slap in the face to people who worked their ass off to become a citizen of this country when the assholes who are born here know jack shit about their own godgiven nation.

We can just agree to disagree there


And even higher



~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~

Alright.

Since nobody has covered it yet, figured I'd mention that both candidates have picked their VPs and both conventions are over.

Trump and Clinton both came out of their conventions with bumps in their poll numbers (Clinton leading), but the race has really only just begun. We can expect the debates and w/e else to have an effect on the outcome of November.

So after accidentally campaigning against Kazhir Khan for a week, Trump is down to Clinton by a ton in the polls. A recent FOX poll had Clinton up 10 points, and an NBC poll with a good sample size had her up 8 points. The RCP average is a 5.8 point lead.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

538's now-cast predicts that if the election were today, Clinton would have a 90% chance of winning. The polls+ prediction for November still has her at a 72% chance for being elected.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...forecast/#plus

Opinions? Do you think these numbers will stick, or will things like the debates end up flipping them?

Someone link a website that shows who's ahead in votes and stuff... My computer takes me to some sketchy ass ads and looks like false websites

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/inte...ll-aug-3-2016/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/firs...-trump-n623131


taken from realclearpolitics on 8/4/16

Right now we have to rely on polling data, and the polls don't show great things for Trump. A great very many people aren't happy with his comments about the Khan family, it seems.

hi, still reading this thread
I agree with NotShadow, I also don't trust the polls honesty since we already know Clinton has bought into protesters and newspapers, etc.
What do you guys think about that?

Also
I think Trump is p bad at this phase of politics he's in right now, he's losing relevancy.
This is what Clinton does well, she has experience in this very phase of the politician job.
Seems like Trump does best person to person where he can apply his past experiences in salesmanship and negotiating, I think he'll be on top in the debates, whether he says sane stuff and or seizes a victory remains to see.

This is exactly what I hate about your presidential elections. For many, it's more a popularity contest than anything else. Look at this guy ! Isn't he skilled and smart and successful because he knows how to lie and attract the camera? Is that really what you want as a president ? Someone who knows how to lie and create scandals?

If I could vote in USA i'd probably vote Hilary at this point. With Bernie down, Yes I'd rather vote for a 3rd party but, let's face, it they're waaay not as relevant as the two leads, so it'd mostly be a vote to counter trump. I realise Hilary lies too, but she knows how to avoid conflict, and I think she'll do much less damage to the USA than trump. On top of that, my social ideologies (views? Forgive my poor english) are much more aligned with hers.

Something else that really piss me off is when I see people say "See ? Obama and Bernie show they're true colours ! they're endorsing Hilary !". It's fascinating how some of view are so biaised in their views of the "political game". Bernie and Obama are just playing it like every one else, it doesn't mean that they approve of Hilary, they're, just like me, securing who they believe is their best bet for the country.


Hopefully this situation will only have minor consequences for the USA, as the congress will finally be able to serve its true purpose, and shorten the range of motion of whoever will be elected next.

to a point i agree, but polls are much more relevant than they were before the conventions. both campaigns will have already switched to general-election mode, so without any outstanding events (barring the debates, which likely will play a substantial role in how this plays out), i can't imagine much will change with these numbers

if trends hold, Trump will just continue shooting himself in the foot (he did in fact, shoot himself in the foot again yesterday), and he'll give Hillary an even LARGER lead


no, hillary hasn't bought fox news (which released a poll that measured her as having a substantial lead last week). if hillary bought every respondent polled (insanely unlikely), then she'd win in november anyway.

there's a good case to be made that polls this early are unreliable, but any sort of conspiracy stuff involving every polling organization in the country is pretty out there

there could be issues with how some organizations calibrate their raw numbers to better predict the actual mood, but that's also unlikely


i think Trump is just bad at politics in general, last week he basically campaigned against Khizr Khan and dominated the news cycles with terrible press for him (people tend to take offence when you insult gold star families on terms of ethnicity), and just yesterday he suggested that somebody assassinate Hillary if she gets elected, before she can make any supreme court picks. there's no way his numbers don't drop after this, because that's absolutely unacceptable

the guy is, frankly, an idiot and his drops in numbers show a growing number of people realizing that he's terrible


Dash, I have to agree. Well said.


ah, right



what's hilarious is that a lot of Trump supporters are saying that this has been taken out of context, when the only way it sounds tame is if its been taken out of context.

"maybe the second amendment people can do something"

okay, maybe they can get out and build a strong ground game to get people out and vote. people say an exceptional ground game can swing an election up to 7 points, after all


"if she [gets elected and] gets to pick her judges... there's nothing you can do folks. although.. the second amendment, [firearm owning], people, maybe there is though i don't know."

wait what the FUCK, what could the second amendment people do AFTER she's been elected?!?!?! he's not talking about assassinating her, is he?!?!??!

god, what a buffoon

Sure, how much context do you want?



It's easy to say, "well there's more context than those 30 seconds," but it's way harder to find any relevant comments elaborating on what he had said. Pretty simply, because those comments don't exist. I've watched most of the rally, he never elaborates on how these second amendment people can stop Hillary's appointment of justices were she to be elected.

Perhaps if right after the comment, he had said, "so we need to do our best to keep her from being able to make those picks in the first place. to do that, i need all you second amendment loving folks to get out there, make phone calls, go out and knock on doors, make sure when everybody goes out to the polls in November they vote, "Trump! *crowd screams* *woooo* *yayyy* *make america great again yaaa* " then that'd obviously be an acceptable comment. but that never happened. Instead, the context of surrounding comments leads us to believe that he just popped around the notion that some gun lovin murican patriot go out and assassinate Hillary Clinton.

if you seriously consider condemnation of comments inciting violence as detracting from the legitimacy of a groups stances, then my heart truly goes out to you. God bless

If we're putting Trump's comment here in context, I'd say he was pretty clearly going for a goof. He was expecting a big ol' laugh after his comment (and there were a few) but it fell mostly flat.

Was he genuinely willing his supporters to go out and shoot Hillary? Or was he cracking a funny? Considering his sense of humour (e.g. Trump mocking that disabled performer), I bet he was trying to crack another funny. He's an idiot, but I don't he's legitimately calling for his supporters to kill someone.