Immigration Debate

+X-Scale
Popper: http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-encourages-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
+panini
why do you think democrats want them?
+X-Scale
Popper: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/11/criminal-president-obama-encourages-illegal-aliens-vote-prom...
+naf
wholy shit
+UrFriend
X-Scale: you have linked to a conspiracy website @ wnd
+naf
look up "bernie sanders sacramento rally"
Ignoring X-Scale!*@*
← stig has quit
+naf
look at the dang size of that thing compared to hillary's rallies
+UrFriend
One of the effects of this choice of yours is that I have ended engaging you.
+englanddg
UrFriend - The video speaks for itself, jsut watch it.
+naf
google images: bernie sanders sacramento rally
+gjvc
this time tomorrow
+aquarius
Bernie sold out fuck him
+gjvc
this channel will be white hot
+UrFriend
englanddg: okay
+gjvc
and the scroll will be 10 rows a second
vote TRUMP
+englanddg
Though, Obama answered with language that if taken without the context of the question, is fine.  He didn't say illegals could vote, he said that voters wouldn't have reprocussions (not illegal voters)...but the question gives it the context.
+Hiker_
i won't be here tomorrow....going to vote at 6AM...going to work....coming home and going to bed
+Popper
c'mon people have you ever seen any illegals? you really think those people will be massively risking deportation to cast a vote?
+UrFriend
englanddg: the videos didn't load
englanddg: do they load for you
+englanddg
His answer should have been simple "undocumented americans cannot vote"
+UrFriend
englanddg: can you please paste verbatim the question and Obama's answer
+englanddg
UrFriend - Dunno, I've already seen the video, so I didn't go to the link.  Want me to find you a video that works?
+UrFriend
UrFriend: Yes, please.
+gjvc
http://www.seattletimes.com/life/wellness/tips-for-survival-after-the-election-win-or-lose/
+Popper
I'm sure a couple illegals will, I'm sure a couple tourists from the ukraine will also vote in the US illegally, but c'mon these votes will amount to nothing
+UrFriend
Popper: there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
The entire thread is a fabrication of Donald Trump who emotionally cannot handle losing.
And so he is fabricating a reality in which he cannot lose.
+gjvc
“We don’t have to wait until after the election,” he said. “We are grieving right now and going through a massive depression. We are so bitterly divided, that there is really a profound and terrifying despair.”
→ Shockmstr has joined
+UrFriend
And the only cost of this emotional frailty of his is our national institutions we've taken centuries to build.
I'll remind you that Donald Trump has called for the cancelling of this election.
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v Shockmstr
+UrFriend
And his summary victory.
I can link to the video, if you'd like.
+Popper
panini, I have to say obama has truly invited illegals to vote and that is nuts
+englanddg
UrFriend - Here's the whole video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLLt-a6dI_0
+redryder
all you need to register is proof you lived somewhere for 30days
+UrFriend
englanddg: thank you
redryder: that is not evidence of voter fraud
+englanddg
As I said, Obama didn't answer her question.  He didn't say illegals could vote.  But, that wasn't her question.
+UrFriend
That's an argument for the plausibility of voter fraud
redryder: I would like to explore your worldview on this topic for one moment
I am a business owner and I have X dollars in fraud each year.
+Popper
I still cannot believe illegals will take that risk but obama DID invite foreigners to vote in US elections
+UrFriend
I lament, I hate this fraud (loss). Can't anybody help me?!
My friend arrives and says, I can stop all that X fraud for you. My price is 10X.
Should the business owner engage in this transaction?
+Mad|Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1936
+legi0n
did anyone vote today and if so did they ask for your ID?
+Mad|Man
this makes me laugh
+Hiker_
In Indiana all early voters must produce acceptable photo ID
+englanddg
Mad - Why does it make you laugh?
+Hiker_
state issued or federally issued
+englanddg
two - yeap.
The migrants are not very popular in Bavaria.
+panini
thousands
+Hiker_
When your homeland is being invaded...you fight to the death
+UrFriend
Hiker_: do you feel your homeland is being invaded?
+Kaliuna
the USA is being invaded!! illegals by the thousands upon thousands
+TFC
shouldnt we be nice to the illegals?
we should make them citizens
→ grub has joined
Ignoring Kaliuna!*@*
+UrFriend
TFC: it depends on your beliefs and goals
As with all questions
+Hiker_
UrFriend...why do you ask?
+Mapman
make money from home, in your spare time!
ask me how.
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v grub
+UrFriend
Hiker_: to learn your answer
+TFC
how Mapman?
+Hiker_
HOW??
Ignoring Mapman!*@*
+Hiker_
Ur...sorry...ur not worthy
ⓘ realiste set mode -v Mapman
+TFC
open borders, open trade
Ignoring Hiker_!*@*
+englanddg
two--face - One sec, I have three good sources for that... (migrant crime)
+UrFriend
Hiker_:  that is reasonable. I will no longer engage you.
+TFC
y hillary wants illegals in?
do they help her?
+macaquito
hitlerry
+TFC
hitler wouldnt even want that
+legi0n
cockmofo
+englanddg
two-face - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/embed?mid=1_rNT3k2ZXB-f9z-2nSFMIBQKXCs
Migrant crimes...you can filter it.
+UrFriend
englanddg: I have watched Obama's statement
+gjvc
disgusting
+englanddg
Took me a moment to find it, but sounds like you are familiar with it.
+UrFriend
He does not state non-citizens should vote
http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
+mantra
he says that if you vote you are a citizen
+aquarius
Snopes lies
+UrFriend
englanddg: Snopes rules this claim false. Do you dispute Snopes on this topic?
+aquarius
all spin
Ignoring aquarius!*@*
+macaquito
spin on this cockwhore
+englanddg
UrFriend - I didn't say that he did...in fact, I said that he didn't.  He also didn't answer her question which WAS about illegals voting.
+UrFriend
I agree he didn't address the question fully. Also, he did give some cover for non-citizens illegally voting.
I don't love his answer.
I would have preferred if he was more declarative, as you mentioned.
"I encourage any citizen of this nation to vote. Don't worry about any laws which say you cannot vote."
"Of course, no citizens can vote on Tuesday."
no non-citizens*
→ bloviator has joined
+UrFriend
It bothers me that she mentioned "dreamers" voting.
+Popper
UrFriend, sorry buddy I'm with cavuto on this one, obama knew exactly what that lady meant
+[pack]
UrFriend, and who is going to stop them....
+UrFriend
Popper: what did Cavuto claim?
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v bloviator
+UrFriend
RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens -- and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country -- are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
+Popper
UrFriend, that obama knew the lady was talking about illegal immigrants voting
+UrFriend
Her definition of citizen is legally invalid.
+Popper
it was very clear
+UrFriend
OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.
+legi0n
my wife just said
cause she is eating chicken wings and i said se smelled great
+Popper
UrFriend, yes her definition of citizen is very wrong, and obama knew that
+[pack]
So, by voting you AUTOMATICALLY become a US citizen??
+UrFriend
Popper: I agree he provided some cover for non-citizens to illegally vote.
+legi0n
she said shes gonna get a tub full of chicken wing sauce for our ten year anniversary
and cover herself in it
...
white women are crazy
+UrFriend
[pack]: that claim by Obama seems baffling.
"when you vote, you are a citizen yourself"
That seems false prima facie.
+[pack]
UrFriend, sounds like he is OKing illegals to vote....
Ignoring legi0n!*@*
+UrFriend
[pack]: I actually agree after thinking about it more.
I would say he implicitly encouraged them, while explicitly not making a statement.
→ Chiyou has joined
+Popper
[pack], I don't think that's what obama meant though, I think obama was disingenuous and "acted" as if he didn't understand the lady was talking about non-citizens
+[pack]
Sounds like he is saying it automatically makes you a US citizen.
+englanddg
UrFriend - Exactly.
+UrFriend
OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don't want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you're not just speaking for yourself. You're speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school...
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v Chiyou
+Popper
but he knew very well of course so I think it's fair to say he promoted illegals voting in US elections
+UrFriend
OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
ⓘ asteroid set mode +l 236
+UrFriend
Okay, he said "who can't legally vote".
His fully answer is arguably explicit.
@synaptic
well there are all of the children of two illegal aliens who think they are citizens
+englanddg
His explicit statement, which didn't answer her question, he did NOT say illegals could vote.  Nothing wrong with what he said, but it's the sort of answer that is very...flexible, whilst not being false.
@synaptic
those illegal alien kids over 18 ARE voting
+UrFriend
synaptic: That is current American law.
@synaptic
urfriend, nope
+mantra
it's a sad state of affairs that all the people that shouldn't be allowed to vote: immigrants, latinos, blacks, women, gays, decide the fate of the election
+UrFriend
englanddg: what about that last part?
OBAMA: ... who may not have a voice. Who can't legally vote. But they're counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
+Popper
UrFriend, it's an open invitation for non-citizens to vote
@synaptic
mantra, you must be a democrat
+[pack]
Not really the LAW in the US....it is how obama has instructed all the fed to act. Which is actually against US law.
+englanddg
UrFriend - Yes, I watched the whole video and saw that.  It's literally yesterdays news (remember, I had to find the video for you)
+mantra
synaptic: not sure what gave you that impression
+UrFriend
Anchor baby is a pejorative[1][2] term for a child born in the U.S. to a foreign national mother who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.[3] The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and can thus act as a sponsor for other family members.[4][5] The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.[6] A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".[7][8]
+Popper
well if 2 illegals have a child in US soil than that kid is an american citizen, right?
→ suisse has joined
+[pack]
UrFriend, Not really the LAW in the US....it is how obama has instructed all the fed to act. Which is actually against US law.
+UrFriend
SCOTUS has read jus soli into the 14th Amendment, synaptic.
+Popper
isn't that the 19th amendment or something? :)
→ taxdude has joined
@synaptic
popper, nope
+UrFriend
This was back around 1900.
@synaptic
14th amendment
+UrFriend
What is your counter-argument?
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v suisse, +v taxdude
+UrFriend
Jus soli (English pronunciation: /dʒʌs ˈsoʊlaɪ/; Latin pronunciation: [jus ˈsoli]), meaning 'right of the soil',[1] commonly referred to as birthright citizenship, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.[2]
+Popper
synaptic, err I meant 14th
@synaptic
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
+Popper
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
+UrFriend
synaptic: America is a common law system, i.e. the law is a hybrid of statutory and case law.
@synaptic
you can go read the congressional record on the debate around the 14th amendment and the author of it
+UrFriend
You are citing relevant statutory law.
@synaptic
it doesn't make the children of two illegal aliens into citizens
+UrFriend
synaptic: SCOTUS has explicitly ruled counter to what you just said
+Popper
synaptic, so children of 2 illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
@synaptic
chilldog must have forgotten the big national debate about this
+UrFriend
SCOTUS might be wrong. First, acknowledge that your position is counter to current case law. Second, what's your counter argument?
+[pack]
UrFriend, I say BIRCH THEM ALL and let god sort it out......
→ Sky\HQ has joined
+Shockmstr
MAGA
+gjvc
it's time to bring back BIRCHING and HANGING
@synaptic
popper, correct, the parents are foreign nationals, so are the children
+gjvc
vote TRUMP
+naf
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5bq40l/wtf_is_this_democrats_get_one_extra_day_to_vote/
+mantra
why do leftists love immigrants so much
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v Sky\HQ
+gjvc
mantra: free voters
+mantra
so if two illegal immigrants cross the border and quickly shit out a kid its not a citizen?
+Popper
synaptic, but that's not the mainstream interpretation of that amendment right?
+UrFriend
Popper: SCOTUS has ruled counter to what synaptic is claiming.
@synaptic
nope
→ FathZippy has joined
+UrFriend
Popper: not "mainstream". It is the current law.
+mantra
it is a citizen**
+gjvc
to avoid a crush, republicans are voting tomorrow, and democrats on wednesday
+UrFriend
That is not the "legal interpretation of the Amendment, right?"
SCOTUS is allowed to interpret the Constitution since Marbury v Madison.
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v FathZippy
+UrFriend
United States: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."[30] The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[31]
@synaptic
and illegal aliens
+Popper
UrFriend, I mean the interpretation that if your parents are foreigners you're not subject to US jurisdiction. Wouldn't that have many other implications?
+lameguy
IT'S ALIENS
+UrFriend
synaptic: It appears you will not be providing a counter-argument to SCOTUS' ruling.
← suisse has quit (Client Quit)
+UrFriend
It does appear you will repeat your well-understood thesis over and over after being challenged by knowledgable people.
→ suisse has joined
ⓘ VonMises set mode +b *!*@cpe-104-162-*.nyc.res.rr.com
← suisse was kicked by VonMises (Banned: requested)
← Mapman has quit
+UrFriend
Popper: SCOTUS has explicitly and repeatedly heard cases in this vein.
+Popper
two-face, I kinda hope trump wins but I think hillary will
+UrFriend
Most of them are from around 1900.
+Popper
UrFriend, hum..
+[pack]
Time to remove the 14th.....it has been abused.
→ lambchopd has joined
→ suisse has joined
+UrFriend
The specific case of two non-citizens, illegal immigrants having a child with contested citizenship was brought before them.
+_Forbin
Wikileaks dumps again....#34....
* _Forbin https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795783530777313280
+Shockmstr
holy fuck
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/96758954
+taxdude
if Hillary wins this may be the last election ever
+UrFriend
SCOTUS explicitly and specifically stated that "the illegal status of the parents has no merit"
+Popper
only thing that worries me about trump is his foreign policy
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v lambchopd, +v suisse
+englanddg
pack - Correct.  It was supposed to take care of the slaves...that mission was accomplished, time to roll it back.
+UrFriend
That is current law in the United States, and has been for over 100 years.
I can provide the citation, if you'd like.
+englanddg
pack - In fact, it's long past time for a convention of the states.
+mantra
Shockmstr: wow... that is uncanny
← Zialus has quit (i'm out!)
+[pack]
englanddg, understatement of the year
+UrFriend
taxdude: why do you think this may be the last election if Hillary wins?
+englanddg
14th can go.  16th and 17th NEED to go.
+[pack]
Kaliuna, no.....repeal it.....
+_Forbin
This dump is very tiny.....only 17 pages
+UrFriend
englanddg: do you don't like the 14the Amendment?
+[pack]
Kaliuna, it has been abused and WILL BE abused again.
+panini
i agree with taxdude
+UrFriend
The 14th Amendment is one of the most consequential of all Amendments.
panini: I am interested in hearing your argument.

+Mr-X
UrFriend: The answer to your question is no, if the parents home country cannot be located then maybe you ahve a case, but if we know where the parents are from its perfectly normal to consider the children also citizens of that country or coutnries
+englanddg
Trumbone - To a point.  Germany, for example, you have to make a choice by age 16.
+UrFriend
Mr-X: What if the parents have been illegally living in the United States for the last 15 years and have explicitly left their home nation state due to political differences.
Are those relevant factors?
+Mr-X
UrFriend: So then implicitly you acknowledge that it is a legitimate role of the state to make sound policy to control the border, and moreover to control immigration through it.
+UrFriend
Mr-X: Yes.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Doesn't matter?
+UrFriend
I think Trump's view on immigration is pretty sound.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Sounds like they should have applied for asylum. If they did, and received it, their kid should as well.
+Popper
I agree, trump's wiser on immigration than hillary
+englanddg
1400 people watching the hillary stream.
+Mr-X
If they applied and didnt get it, their kid doesnt either. And if they didnt apply, obviously they didn't get it.
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I am inclined to say that the circumstances leading to the parent's illegal entry into the United States, as well as how long they've been living here, are factors in determining whether they are subject to the jurisdiction of America.
+englanddg
30k watching the Trump stream.
Unreal.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Subject to our jurisdiction in what sense? Immigration?
+sn00p_
democrats dont do well with technology
+englanddg
sn00p - Based on Hillary's escapades, this is obvious.
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I am inclined to say that somebody who has been living in the United States for, say 15 years, has been under the jurisdiction of the United States.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: The fact that they are within the grasp of INS makes them subject to their jurisdiction, basically.
UrFriend: So?
@synaptic
wrong
not that kind of jurisdiction, it speaks to nationality
+M_Saint
obama phones don;t stream well...
@synaptic
to what nation is one subject to
+UrFriend
Mr-X: If they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, then the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment certainly applies to their child.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: So has a Canadian who got blown off course on Lake Erie
+Popper
if it wasn't for trump's foreign policy and his delusional expectations regarding trade agreements, he'd make an amazing candidate heehheeheh
← happy_day has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
+englanddg
One can be a citizen of a state, but not a citizen of the country...just sayin.
+UrFriend
For the record, the current status quo as I understand it is that if you have to an a specific exemption to American law to not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: I'm not arguing otherwise.
+UrFriend
That is, if we don't know who you belong to, legally, you belong to America. That is what SCOTUS has interpreted.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: But you're acting as if that's the only sensible way to handle things
@synaptic
englanddg, folks born in d.c. and other u.s. territories are united states citizens
+englanddg
synaptic - That isn't what I meant.
* synaptic grins
@synaptic
ok fine
+Mr-X
When in fact we're the odd man out here and jus solis citizenship is something of a legal oddity
+UrFriend
Mr-X: You are proposing, perhaps, the opposite: You are not subject to American jurisdiction unless you can show you have no other legal obligations/citizenships.
Which is reasonable, but importantly different.
Mr-X: I agree we are the odd man out, roughly speaking.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: No, I'm simply responding to your earlier questions about the basics of how alternatives to jus solis could work
+englanddg
synaptic - One can be, for example, here on a VISA, and get a state drivers license or ID, because after a certain period of residence (generally 90 - 180 days) states assume you as a citizen of their state (for both jurisdiction and taxation purposes).
+UrFriend
Mr-X: A question I asked englanddg earlier is 'What is the primary problem(s) caused by America's jus soli citizenship principle?'
+Mr-X
UrFriend: And frankly I do think amending the constitution to change this is not the worst idea.
+UrFriend
Because one issue I have had with Trump proposals is that he is proposing expensive solutions to problems with unclear costs.
+englanddg
synaptic - So, one can be a citizen of a state, but not a citizen of the country.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Have you been to New Mexico lately? Nevada?
+UrFriend
I have not.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Ah.
@synaptic
englanddg, ah, you are correct sir
→ fstd_ has joined
+UrFriend
If I did, What would I observe that is relevant to the question?
→ LizardPpl has joined
← LizardPpl has quit (Client Quit)
→ LizardPpl has joined
← Hiker_ has quit (Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92 [Firefox 49.0.2/20161019084923])
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Well, part of the problem is the strain on social services.
+UrFriend
For example, there is a net economic benefit to the American economy from illegal immigration.
@synaptic
wrong
+Mr-X
Cultural impacts on school districts.
+UrFriend
Though, some American citizens do have their standard of living lowered. (Up to several million American citizens)
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v fstd_, +v LizardPpl
+MrDNA
I cannot hear Springsteen !
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Oh please. There are so many ways to structure that statistic in any way you want it that it's a meaningless claim that brings shame and distrust on those who speak it.
+madnezz
encourage crime!
wooo
and human trafficking
→ r0ach has joined
+madnezz
i think that a good plan
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I have looked at numerous reports on this issue. They disagree. The average impact on the US economy of illegal immigration seems to between netural to slightly positive.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: If you had been paying attention to the southwest and increasingly elsewhere in the US, you'd notice this strain on social services.
+madnezz
i dunno if i snuck into tie US, i wouldnt be able to vote, and would get thrown in jail and deported
and i accept that
+UrFriend
A utilitarian viewpoint would argue that illegal immigration, in this regard, is good for the nation and that we should relax our immigration laws.
+madnezz
thats why i dont do it.
+englanddg
MrDNA - Hahahaha, I unmuted it to hear what you meant.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Numerous reports, well, that sounds pretty definitive. Lol.
+madnezz
and you your country is fuckkkkkked up.
+englanddg
Springsteen really has changed his musical style!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DenQaUO2YDY
+madnezz
but i think some will get my point
+UrFriend
A rights-based view would say that the net utilitarian benefit is not able to offset the economic loss to those several million American workers in industries competing with illegal immigrants.
+RickNRoll
They don't deport anyone who doesn't go back voluntarily. They give them a summons to appear an at immigration hearing 2 years later.
Most people don't show.
+englanddg
People are LEAVING the Hillary stream.
Hahaha
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I am concerned about your usage of "lol".
+Mr-X
UrFriend: That isn't a utilitarian perspective it's a reductionist one based on a dubious premise.
+avramel
YOU'VE GOT MAIL
+Mr-X
UrFriend: You've chosen as your moniker, "urFriend", and you're questioning my usage of memetastic language?
+UrFriend
Mr-X: "numerous reports" is a claim that such documents exist. This claim may be false. It's an entirely different thread to engage that.
Mr-X: Correct.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Thou hypocrite.
+Popper
UrFriend, wouldn't it be simpler if all immigrants were registered and the amount the country takes in is being controlled?
+RickNRoll
THe people who have trouble with the immigration courts are those that are trying to be here legally. Student visas and the like.
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I chose this name before and independent of engaging you.
You used "lol" as part of your response to *me*.
ⓘ legi0n is now known as myfriend
+myfriend
:D
+UrFriend
That is the difference, from my perspective.
+RickNRoll
They have trouble because they actually show up.
+myfriend
now we can be friends!
@synaptic
we naturalize nearly a million new citizens a year and allow millions more to live here as legal permanent residents, students, laborers, and so on
+Mr-X
The regulars here can attest to my usage of lol on many occasions
@synaptic
get in line or gtfo
pretty much how i see it
+Popper
UrFriend, that's the way they do things in many places, when there's demand for foreign labor, the number of immigrants accepted rises
ⓘ myfriend is now known as legi0n
← legi0n has quit (Quit: food)
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I cannot speak to that, but "lol" generally indicates a non-critical response to dissent.
+Mr-X
No it doesn't, lol.
+UrFriend
And I was worried about it being a signal to a decrease in the otherwise high quality of our conversation.
@synaptic
kek
→ DMG-LP has joined
+Willpa
Well folks, who's our next President?
@synaptic
TRUMP
+Mad|Man
no idea
+LizardPpl
satan
+UrFriend
I am willing to refocus on the topics. :)
+Mad|Man
my head hurts too much to care
+Mr-X
Shroedinger
+MrDNA
I found the audio on the stream here
https://www.c-span.org/networks/?channel=c-span
ⓘ Ekko set mode +v DMG-LP
← fstd has quit (Read error: Operation timed out)
ⓘ fstd_ is now known as fstd
+Willpa
2face: I'm holding my nose and voting for DT
+UrFriend
Mr-X: You mentioned strain on social services and cultural impact.
+Popper
Willpa is voting johnson
+Mr-X
Our next president is a currently non-collapsed wave function
+UrFriend
Mr-X: It seems within the established legal framework for citizens of a nation to determine their immigration policy in regard to other cultures they may or may not like.
+Willpa
I love you to Popper
+UrFriend
So, Americans in border states not liking Mexican culture seems valid.
+Mad|Man
Willpa is voting for his Johnson
he calls it fluffy
+Mr-X
UrFriend: What is a gold bar worth?
+Popper
ha!
@synaptic
mr-x, so this basically? http://d3qvyul2tp4j8.cloudfront.net/i/aWUdkxnO8v.jpg
+UrFriend
They need to enforce those preferences at the nation level, i.e. through their President and Congress.
+Willpa
I love you to ManMan
* Mad|Man hugs Willpa.
@synaptic
or http://i.imgur.com/AdKdjiel.jpg
+Willpa
Howdy do Kali  :-)
+UrFriend
I think several US presidents, including Clinton, Bush, and Obama, have not well-represented the views of at least millions of Americans, if not a majority.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: More importantly, why is the gold bar worth whatever it is worth?
+UrFriend
Also, Congress has largely floundered on this issue.
Mr-X: I don't understand the relevance of this question.
+Publius
two-face i suppose that makes sense
+Mr-X
Answer that and you'll understand why economic arguments about social policy are boneheaded
+Willpa
Kali: had planned to go to Scranton tonight, but I decided not to go alone
+englanddg
https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6gE1gnaojc9O5cD6/giphy.gif
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Think harder. You're discussing the "net economic impact".
UrFriend: But you're acting as if the economy were some objective measure
+Gnar
https://twitter.com/Turnt_Grandpa/status/676582244945817600
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I prefer you to make your points directly.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: I am.
+Mad|Man
I am curious about if there will be any "early vote" leaks tomorrow
+MrDNA
This is good The Boss still sounds the same...always good
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Still dont get it?
+UrFriend
Mr-X: Trump has repeatedly referred to economic impacts of illegal immigration.
Mr-X: I do not understand your current line of argumentation.
+Mad|Man
and Trump is absolutely right
+englanddg
Mad - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cii9f3GVAAAF7sy.jpg
That sort of "leak"?
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Sure. But ultimately Trump realizes something you don't, which is that the price of things is not objective but completely a function of human perception
← Foosball has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
+Mr-X
UrFriend: If everyone thinks something is worth a little, but you know better, you can get rich that way.
+Mad|Man
englanddg, that is something I can never unsee
thanks
+Mr-X
Thats how people like Trump make their money, actually.
+Willpa
Pence is on CNN
+UrFriend
Mr-X: How does this relate to immigration policy?
+Mr-X
This ability also entails the converse - the ability to discern things that are overvalued.
+Popper
even if immigration has positive effects, these effects could still be taken advantage of IF immigration was under control
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Policy has value.
+UrFriend
Value here means economic value?
+Mr-X
UrFriend: As you implicitly acknowledge yourself when you make economic arguments to support your preferred policies.
+Popper
what' the benefit of uncontrolled, unregistered immigration?
+UrFriend
Popper: cheap labor
+Mad|Man
Kaliuna, education illegals cost over 3/4rds of a billion dollars
+Willpa
Popper: decline in the rate of earning
+Popper
UrFriend, you can still get that through work VISA laborers
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Is our current immigration policy a "buy" or a "sell"? You see it one way, Trump sees it another.
+UrFriend
Popper: illegal immigration allows companies to pay illegal workers at low rates
+Mr-X
Frankly, I trust Trump's judgement on such matters more than I do yours. It makes more sense.
+UrFriend
Decreasing prices in produced products, and increasing revenue of that corporation
← LizardPpl has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
+Mr-X
UrFriend: How do you sum up the cost of the externalities involved
+englanddg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/da/da/43/dada43185166846d618961bf0a82fa49.jpg
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Are you even including them?
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I agree in part with Trump's views on immigration. One of my concerns about him leading immigration policy is that he's an anti-intellectual and xenophobic.
+Popper
UrFriend, below minimum wage you mean? Because as a laborer in a work VISA they won't be making much more than min wage
+Mr-X
How do you even *robustly enumerate them all*?
+UrFriend
That is, He is likely to pursue policies that seem good to him that are not in the interest of America.
+Mr-X
You're selling snake oil under the guise of economics.
+UrFriend
Popper: Yes.
+Willpa
These five dollar words have got to go
+UrFriend
Mr-X: Your usage of you-statements and some of your word choices is decreasing the quality of our conversation.
+Mr-X
Willpa: There is no simpler way to say externality than externality
UrFriend: You do know what an externality is, don't you?
+gjvc
vote TRUMP
+UrFriend
Yes.
+panini
This Pence speech is good
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I am close to ending my conversation with you.
+Willpa
Mr.X: nope, haven't go a clue
+Mr-X
What's the cost of the dilution of rule of law associated with rampant illegal immigration, then?
+UrFriend
I would like the quality to increase so that we can continue.
+Mr-X
And how did you derive that cost?
+TFC
No
vote hillary
@synaptic
urfriend, are your folks illegal aliens?
+Popper
UrFriend, I agree there may be benefits to businesses paying below minimum wages to their workers but, it doesn't seem to be a great reason to maintain uncontrolled immigration :)
+lameguy
Trump can easily win... I'm going to vote at least 1 time for DJT
Ignoring synaptic!*@*
+lameguy
I dunno about you guys?
+englanddg
If Hillary wins, remember, she'll sit behind the same desk that Monica kneeled under.
+Mr-X
UrFriend: I await a substantial response to the content rather than tone of my questions
+TFC
vote early and vote often
+UrFriend
Mr-X: a conversation is between two human beings. Tone matters.
+Willpa
TFC: gubber
+Mad|Man
across the US 1 or of 10 kids in k-12 are illegal
+UrFriend
If you think it doesn't matter, I encourage you to explain the repeated offensives people take in most online conversations.
+Mad|Man
that is a conservative estimate
+Mr-X
UrFriend: Not necessarily. Don't be so presumptuous as to exclude sentient AIs and such from the conversation.
@pilgrim`
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914340/Senior-adviser-Valerie-Jarrett-convinced-President-O...
+Mad|Man
or=out
+Popper
UrFriend, don't worry about the hysteria, it adds an emotional component to the discussion :)
+englanddg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/04/cf/e4/04cfe48cdffbd63480366ac9c7a4e1bb.jpg
+Mr-X
UrFriend: What if I'm actually an alien from mars?
Suddenly I have to be human to trade logic?
+UrFriend
Mr-X: It seems reasonable to believe there is a cost associated with the dilution of the rule of law based off rates of illegal immigration
@pilgrim`
problem is….he can’t.  Thanks to J Edgar Hoover, the FBI Director serves a 10 year term with 2 options for renewal and can ONLY be removed via impeachment by Congress.  Obama CAN’T FIRE HIM
+UrFriend
Do you have any models to estimate that cost?
+Willpa
You're just jealous
+Mr-X
UrFriend: You're the one purporting to know the answers
Not me. I said its ridiculous to try to estimate.
+UrFriend
Mr-X: I have ended my conversation with you.
Ignoring Mr-X!*@*
+Mad|Man
UrFriend, yes I do
http://www.fairus.org/issues/publications/state-cost-studies
+UrFriend
Your last comment has the spirit of a fight where you have a side and I have a side.
ⓘ VonMises set mode -b *!uid*@*
ⓘ Rang3r set mode -b *!uid*@*
+UrFriend
I don't think that disposition lends itself to useful conversations.
I think a better disposition is one from the spirit of learning.
+Mad|Man
http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-california-taxpayers
ⓘ realiste set mode -v UrFriend
[Ekko]
You've been quieted for 72 hours (mode -v). Parting the channel will result in a 2 hour ban (mode +b).