NJ to allocate $2.1M in aid for illegal immigrants facing deportation

[Perfectson]

Your reading comprehension on this site does help to explain how you came to hold your particular set of beliefs.

Bro - again insulting me when but can't even address what I stated because you know you feel stupid .You're disagreeing with me and then literally agreed on the whole point I made. It's incredible

. True, it is likely that there would be even more benefit if they were legalized.

That means they aren't contributing their "fair share" , if you believe they would be more benefit if they were legalized. Thats the entire point I made , whether you believe it's a deficit or a gain...that counters the entire argument and says we should be stopping illegals and allowing more legal immigrants . Thats basic economics ...101 and that how I base my answers. If it's more productive or efficient for legals working in society, why would I want or encourage illegals who are less efficient .

Good gracious and there's a bunch of dotards who dapped you and you even had the audacity to even insult me on reading comprehension

 

[Perfectson]

And to be clear, do you know who actually isn't paying their fair share?

Non-working adults who collect benefits, the military-industrial complex, the financial services industry, seniors who substantially outlive/outsick their contributions to the system, subsidized corporate agriculture, portions of the pharmaceutical and health care insurance system, lobbyists, prisoners, Israel, and certain wealthy persons and corporations who practice tax dodges and tax forgiveness well in excess of their positive contributions.*

Damn near everyone else is paying MORE than their fair share. The average fully employed working-class young adult is paying WAY more than their fair share, whether legal or illegal.




* And, by extension, also the idiots who vote for us to spend so much damn money on the military industrial complex, the financial services industry, subsidized corporate agriculture, corruption/overpricing in the pharmaceutical and health care insurance industries, lobbyists, prisons, Israel, and tax dodges for the wealthy and certain corporations.

Actually man of those are incorrect, fair share is relative because the budgets are set based in projections of legal Usage of the systems. So while your analysis might be accurate in a vacuum that's not how socialism or socialist policies work .

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Bro - again insulting me when but can't even address what I stated because you know you feel stupid .You're disagreeing with me and then literally agreed on the whole point I made. It's incredible

1. I didn't agree with you, that was either a reading comprehension issue or a logic failure on your part.

2. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect that you are demonstrating right now. I had no reason to feel stupid, and I am secure in the strength of my positions on both the individual and corporate level. It was pointless to address your error because my experience with you is that you don't respond to logic, and everyone else reading could already see you were wrong.

That means they aren't contributing their "fair share" , if you believe they would be more benefit if they were legalized.

Wrong. They would simply progress from their current cohort which is contributing more than their fair share to a new cohort which would contribute even a greater amount more than their fair share. You can't say someone is contributing "less than their fair share" just because another group is contributing more, they BOTH are net benefits to the system.

I already listed to you who the takers are. Fully employed young adults doing work productive to society are not takers in our system - they draw little away from the nation's resources while adding an extensive amount.

Imagine you are a family of five living in a home with plenty of space but needing more income to care for the new baby in the family. Your 22yo brother moves back in and gets a job as a gardener, he pulls in $2,000 a year of which he uses $1,200 to cover all of his own expenses and gives $800 a month to help out the family meet the baby's needs. He is a net benefit to the family. You could tell him, "Hey, Larry the welder makes $4,000 a month, he's helping his family even more." But that doesn't mean your older brother isn't contributing his fair share, he's already doing more than enough, even though it is true that he could be doing more.

Even undocumented immigrants are already a net benefit to the system, as I demonstrated to you is the general position of most economists outside of the nativist right. The fact that legalizing them could bring even greater benefit does not someone invalidate that they were already a net benefit.

Thats the entire point I made , whether you believe it's a deficit or a gain...that counters the entire argument and says we should be stopping illegals and allowing more legal immigrants . Thats basic economics ...101 and that how I base my answers. If it's more productive or efficient for legals working in society, why would I want or encourage illegals who are less efficient.

You're creating a false dilemma. There is no one suggesting a policy that exchanges illegal immigrants for legal ones, unless you wish to institute a system for legalizing illegal immigrants, which I would happily support.

Good gracious and there's a bunch of dotards who dapped you and you even had the audacity to even insult me on reading comprehension

Which affirms my previous position that it wasn't necessary to further explain what the other readers already understood. It also should lead you to reevaluate your own position and consider what you might have missed. Unless you see yourself as so far above other posters here that there is nothing you can learn from them.

 

[Perfectson]

1. I didn't agree with you, that was either a reading comprehension issue or a logic failure on your part.

2. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect that you are demonstrating right now. I had no reason to feel stupid, and I am secure in the strength of my positions on both the individual and corporate level. It was pointless to address your error because my experience with you is that you don't respond to logic, and everyone else reading could already see you were wrong.




Wrong. They would simply progress from their current cohort which is contributing more than their fair share to a new cohort which would contribute even a greater amount more than their fair share. You can't say someone is contributing "less than their fair share" just because another group is contributing more, they BOTH are net benefits to the system.

I already listed to you who the takers are. Fully employed young adults doing work productive to society are not takers in our system - they draw little away from the nation's resources while adding an extensive amount.

Imagine you are a family of five living in a home with plenty of space but needing more income to care for the new baby in the family. Your 22yo brother moves back in and gets a job as a gardener, he pulls in $2,000 a year of which he uses $1,200 to cover all of his own expenses and gives $800 a month to help out the family meet the baby's needs. He is a net benefit to the family. You could tell him, "Hey, Larry the welder makes $4,000 a month, he's helping his family even more." But that doesn't mean your older brother isn't contributing his fair share, he's already doing more than enough, even though it is true that he could be doing more.

Even undocumented immigrants are already a net benefit to the system, as I demonstrated to you is the general position of most economists outside of the nativist right. The fact that legalizing them could bring even greater benefit does not someone invalidate that they were already a net benefit.




You're creating a false dilemma. There is no one suggesting a policy that exchanges illegal immigrants for legal ones, unless you wish to institute a system for legalizing illegal immigrants, which I would happily support.




Which affirms my previous position that it wasn't necessary to further explain what the other readers already understood. It also should lead you to reevaluate your own position and consider what you might have missed. Unless you see yourself as so far above other posters here that there is nothing you can learn from them.

Bro you did a that bullshjt to say exactly what I said again, you're 100% agreeing with me. There's no reading comprehension, you're sharing exactly what I'm saying and admitting they aren't contributing what others are, whether you believe they can grow into contributing similarly to legal working citizens at some point in the future where their dynamics have changed is conjecture in your part. Your basis is exactly the same.

A positive benefit doesn't mean it's okay, in economics its called ROI or NPV/IRR...if the comparable NPV are positive you don't go for the lower NPV or IRR it's not sound economics . If we continue allowing more illegals in and then dynamic shift it will actually hurt the economy, because the weight averaged of the benefits will drive overall averages down. Simple math you cannot argue that within the vacuum we know now.
A tadpole is a tadpole, just because it can grow into a frog doesn't mean you can sit here and say both are the same. You can toss around big words and bullshyt theories , the data is there and it's based in science and economics ...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Bro you did a that bullshjt to say exactly what I said again, you're 100% agreeing with me. There's no reading comprehension, you're sharing exactly what I'm saying and admitting they aren't contributing what others are, whether you believe they can grow into contributing similarly to legal working citizens at some point in the future where their dynamics have changed is conjecture in your part. Your basis is exactly the same.

A positive benefit doesn't mean it's okay, in economics its called ROI or NPV/IRR...if the comparable NPV are positive you don't go for the lower NPV or IRR it's not sound economics . If we continue allowing more illegals in and then dynamic shift it will actually hurt the economy, because the weight averaged of the benefits will drive overall averages down. Simple math you cannot argue that within the vacuum we know now.
A tadpole is a tadpole, just because it can grow into a frog doesn't mean you can sit here and say both are the same. You can toss around big words and bullshyt theories , the data is there and it's based in science and economics ...

Once again, you're creating nonexistent false dilemmas.

#1. Your argument is the equivalent of claiming that a baller scoring 20ppg on 55% shooting is hurting the team because someone else on their team is scoring 22ppg on 58% shooting. Claiming that someone is not the absolute prime highest contributor is NOT calling them a net negative. Illegal immigrants do NOT bring down the "overall averages", they contribute far more than nonworking adults, seniors, criminals, prisoners, many wealthy tax dodgers, and a large number of parasitic corporations.

#2. Not that "overall averages" are a sensical standard anyway - no one's experience is determined by the "overall average" of the country. If someone else comes in and contributes positively to the system, others experience that as a net benefit. It makes no sense to claim that a net benefit to the system somehow degrades anyone else's experience - there's no way from a to b there.

#3. You keep comparing illegal immigrants to legal immigrants as if there is some choice in the system. Are you promoting a proposal to legalize the bulk of illegal immigrants, or to replace all illegal immigrants with a group of comparable legal immigrants? If so your question is relevant. But that's not the question being asked right now, the question is them or nothing at all. And they are a far better contributor to society than nothing at all.

Of course, I've said all this already and you've ignored it, repeating things that don't work logically or have already been disproven. I provided receipts and you completely ignored them. It gets tiring to have to explain the same principle three times and then have you continue on, it's like talking to a stone wall.

Honestly, what do you feel is the marginal utility of your time here? Do you feel like you're learning something? Do you feel like others are learning something from you? Why do you post if you don't take other people's arguments seriously and people don't respect your arguments?


p.s. - where did you come from? I legit don't remember you before the last couple weeks at all. Are you an alias for Napoleon meant to engage with people he put on ignore or not?

 

[Perfectson]

Once again, you're creating nonexistent false dilemmas.

#1. Your argument is the equivalent of claiming that a baller scoring 20ppg on 55% shooting is hurting the team because someone else on their team is scoring 22ppg on 58% shooting. Claiming that someone is not the absolute prime highest contributor is NOT calling them a net negative. Illegal immigrants do NOT bring down the "overall averages", they contribute far more than nonworking adults, seniors, criminals, prisoners, many wealthy tax dodgers, and a large number of parasitic corporations.

#2. Not that "overall averages" are a sensical standard anyway - no one's experience is determined by the "overall average" of the country. If someone else comes in and contributes positively to the system, others experience that as a net benefit. It makes no sense to claim that a net benefit to the system somehow degrades anyone else's experience - there's no way from a to b there.

#3. You keep comparing illegal immigrants to legal immigrants as if there is some choice in the system. Are you promoting a proposal to legalize the bulk of illegal immigrants, or to replace all illegal immigrants with a group of comparable legal immigrants? If so your question is relevant. But that's not the question being asked right now, the question is them or nothing at all. And they are a far better contributor to society than nothing at all.

Of course, I've said all this already and you've ignored it, repeating things that don't work logically or have already been disproven. I provided receipts and you completely ignored them. It gets tiring to have to explain the same principle three times and then have you continue on, it's like talking to a stone wall.

Honestly, what do you feel is the marginal utility of your time here? Do you feel like you're learning something? Do you feel like others are learning something from you? Why do you post if you don't take other people's arguments seriously and people don't respect your arguments?


p.s. - where did you come from? I legit don't remember you before the last couple weeks at all. Are you an alias for Napoleon meant to engage with people he put on ignore or not?

1. More like a 25% shooter and a 60% shooter, your analogy sucks because you made the two %'s so close together no one would care either way. There's a larger disparity then what you show in your examples.

2. Of course it's ran by overall averages, this is a given. I'm not going to argue about facts that everyone agrees with.

3. Disagree, because removing them would create opportunities for other productive solutions.

4. You haven't explained anything nor provided receipts. I've answered your questions thoughtfully with common sense . You have an OPINION based in poor economics to try to sway the arguement and I just cannot be swayed by poor answers and bad economics. It's funny you talk about the mariginal utility of time, because that's exactly the basis of my argument (marginal economics) on why illegals aren't benefitting American society as a whole.