Hodad

A. In the US GDP per capita is only up. B. That number, for either country, doesn't have much to do with undocumented people, aside from a small impact on the denominator. Doesn't tell you anything. You'd need a proper impact analysis to tease out the effect of immigrants separate from any macro trends. Would the number be lower if they weren't there? Would it be higher? Etc. There are industries in the US that wouldn't exist or would be radically different without immigrant labor. When you look at agriculture, hospitality and service sectors, for example, they run on immigrant labor--regardless of legal status. And I'm not talking about exploitation or abuse (though that does sometimes occur) but rather the simple economics of people willing to do jobs Americans don't want. We have data to back it up. We have run experiments to bear out the data. We Americans are better off for it, and like every wave of immigration that has come before, it's people doing hard jobs and busting ass to make a life for their families and a world of opportunity for their children.

The undocumented are a net economic positive, but we'd be better off resolving the immigration pressure with comprehensive immigration reform. Unfortunately, Trump felt that having the issue was better for him than finding a solution for Americans and a bipartisan bill went up in smoke.

So your talking specifically about newly arrived asylum seekers rather than the vast majority of the undocumented population? And you mean who pays to keep them alive while they are detained by US authorities? Well, yeah, we do pay to keep people alive in those circumstances. But once they are released with work permits, they go out and get jobs and build lives. You seem to be laboring under some kind of delusion that illegal immigrants get some kind of free ride here. That's made up "welfare Queen" nonsense.

Jeebus, dude, he's a pundit. A constitutional scholar is an academic occupation with a primary output being rigorous scholarly publishing. This is roughly like scientific research publishing in peer reviewed journals. It's not for dilettantes. And his legal career is thin. I am deeply skeptical that he's argued cases before the SCOTUS. I suspect you made that up. Gonna need a citation there.

The parents don't get citizenship, nor are they eligible for "free stuff." Typically they work hard, keep their heads down and pay taxes into a system from which they can receive nothing in return, all to give their child access to the American dream.

It's true. They've been systematically undone by a movement that does not believe in democracy or the institutions that preserve it. And a disengaged public voted for it.

I didn't claim to be a constitutional scholar. YOU falsely claimed that Levin is. And no, FFS, what he is saying is NOT precedent. It's the opposite of precedent. The precedent is--and always has been--that people born here are citizens. That's been true since the nation's founding. The only reason it was written out explicitly as an amendment during reconstruction is to protect Black Americans from Southern legal shenanigans. And you can't have mine, but for $6 you can get your own copy of the Federalist Papers. Very impressive.

Dude, there's no substantive "bill paying" going on. That's not how NATO works. Countries aren't sending money to a central military. We're all spending money domestically on our own military strength. So, no. The US is not tired of paying other countries' bills. That's spending that we're going to do regardless, to maintain our own security. -- or potentially invade Greenland and Panama now that we've elected a giant orange toddler to the presidency. At any rate, the alliance is more potent if the member nations to do meet spending targets, but nobody here feels anything about it. It's not an issue people here even know about outside of the absurd campaign rhetoric.

Lol, you can't even keep the claims straight, you sad wet fart of a person. And not that we were talking about it, but yes, the hack is confirmed and documented as well.

Oh, jeebus. Mark Levin is a certified arsehole, but he's not a constitutional scholar. And he's marketing insanity at you--apparently successfully. And my goodness, imagine how farking stupid someone would have to be to declare that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of federal and state governments--the equivalent of diplomatic immunity. Good luck arresting them. They can try to amend the constitution, but the way it's currently written is clear and has been supported by binding precedent. Trying to invent a convenient, novel reading for it now is dishonest and desperate. -- And this from the same people dishonestly lionizing constitutional originalism and literalism. Oy.

Because you've got your lips sewn firmly to Trump's butthole, you still refuse to acknowledge that significant portions of the raw intelligence in the Steele dossier were borne out by subsequent investigation--particularly the Russia connections. We know--well, "we" being those of us not attached to Trump's butthole--know who on the campaign was meeting with Russian intelligence operatives, where, when, how they corresponded, and the extraordinary measures they undertook to hide their activity. And we know what happened to the information and what the Russians did to Americans. And it's all meticulously documented in official reports that are accessible to everyone, including historians present and future. It does not matter one iota that an irrelevant, impotent old foreigner like you pretended that the Earth is flat. The truth will persist regardless of your willful ignorance.

It would be some extreme activism indeed. Nobody anywhere actually believes the meaning is unclear--because it isn't. And the precedent at the SCOTUS level is also very clear. This specious "legal theory" is as absurd as the coup memo. Even the people promoting it don't believe it. They just hope they have enough shameless ideologues in the right places to get away with it. Once, I would have said that even this corrupt and compromised court couldn't go that far, but every time I think that, they stoop lower.

I have to ask, how is this shocking? This is exactly what was advertised. This what the dumb half of America voted for.

Indeed, the idea that the 2nd amendment was an individual right rather than addressing the formation of militia is a relatively new and radical interpretation. Not until an internal revolution in the NRA in the late 70s did that become a political issue, and they found the right judges to turn the historical precedent upside down. For anyone curious about that history

Thanks for that incredibly dumb editorial. Since Obama was in office, and the CIA and FBI were investigating the Trump campaign's--very real-- ties to Russia, it magically means the investigation started at Obama's command. Nevermind that it would have been absolutely negligent to not investigate the factual connections between the campaign and Russia. The odd thing with the "party of personal responsibility" is that they don't have any. Just totally unfair that authorities investigate Trump for the shady things he's *actually* doing. Political witch hunt!

That's completely asinine. Does the existence of black people in the workplace create "hostile environment" for racists? Inclusion means live and let live. Everyone gets to exist as themselves. It has zero impact on you whether your colleague is Christopher or Christine. If you're so goddamn bigoted that you can't control yourself at the office and treat your colleagues with respect and professionalism while you're there, then it's a YOU problem. It's not a problem with the people you hate and target simply for existing. You become toxic and detrimental to the company and you can GTFO. Good riddance.

That's remarkably dumb, but still probably not in the top ten for the last couple of weeks. This administration is bizzy.

You are such a piece of shit.

Disengagement, ignorance and apathy is how President Camacho got elected in the first place. Now that election season is over even people on the margin are done thinking about it. Until they pay more for eggs, apparently.

Simple question. Do you think that the government should force businesses to retain people who create a hostile environment for their colleagues? Because that's certainly what you're implying. BofA -- or any business, has right to create inclusive environments to attract and retain the best talent. Racists, sexists, homophobes--bigots of any stripe destroy that environment. They chase away talent. They are a detriment to the company and the company absolutely SHOULD fire them if they can't correct their behavior.

Read that sentence again. He was fired for creating a hostile environment for other employees. It is none of his business, nor any other employee's business to preach against the lifestyles of their co-workers. Nobody was fired for their beliefs. If any of that is true, he would have been fired because he couldn't keep his damn mouth shut and act like a professional in a place of business.

Hyperbole because it sounds pretty dumb to complain about a 2 year sentence by comparing it to a 2 year sentence?

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the FACE act cases--nor most of the Jan 6 cases. And no, your ass-backward perspective on legacy is not going to work out. Historians already know where these two stand.

The SCOTUS did no such thing. And those misdemeanors come standard with jail time. It's not jaywalking. The law is very clear--as is the basic human decency not to treat other people as she did. Fark her bullshit. She--and apparently you--think it's cool to harass and assault people who don't adhere to her religious beliefs. Consequences are the deterrent. And the fake-ass party of law and order just eliminated the deterrent for violent riots and for harassing people on religious grounds.

You are brazenly lying. Nobody got life for blocking doors Look at the damn OP, even. All about 2 years except for the first one who stole and illegally stored fetal parts in her goddamn refrigerator.