Good Twitter thread on the horror of "concentration camps" and the applicability of that term to migrants being detained at the Southern border

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,897
32,700
136
And you are entirely full of shit. To the fucking power of 12 billion you complete imbecile moron. Instead of using your feelings and the natural hard-on you get every time you hear the word "immigrate", why don't you use facts instead?

#1 - You cannot cite "immigrants" as a whole. There are illegal immigrants. There are asylum seekers. There are border hoppers, There are legitimate people who APPLY for immigration. There are people who fly in on a visa and overstay. Averaging all the different immigration when you know DAMN well you are referring to ONE SPECIFIC type of immigration (border hoping) is INCREDIBLY deceptive and a complete lie. Cite some ACTUAL fucking evidence on border hoppers. But you wont.

#2 - Your statement in of itself is false. Instead of using feelings, why don't you use facts instead? FACT: 63% of Non-Citizens use government benefits programs compared to 35% of native households. https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

These CIS "studies" have a troubled past to say the least. CATO has been on them for years including about this one:

https://www.cato.org/blog/center-im...ates-immigrant-non-citizen-native-welfare-use

In short their methodology sucks and has for a long time. That org's whole ambition in life is to scare nervous white people with big figures like that 63% so that they can eliminate immigration to the US. I had recalled that use was much lower for immigrants but CATO says by the available information that it's basically a wash. Given that immigrants pay taxes this does not seem like an enormous injustice fo native borns.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
I'm seeing all this shit that it's so hard to get to the US now without dying and suffering because of the Trump admin. Why doesn't Canada offer to fly all the vulnerable immigrants in?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,718
47,407
136
And you are entirely full of shit. To the fucking power of 12 billion you complete imbecile moron. Instead of using your feelings and the natural hard-on you get every time you hear the word "immigrate", why don't you use facts instead?

#1 - You cannot cite "immigrants" as a whole. There are illegal immigrants. There are asylum seekers. There are border hoppers, There are legitimate people who APPLY for immigration. There are people who fly in on a visa and overstay. Averaging all the different immigration when you know DAMN well you are referring to ONE SPECIFIC type of immigration (border hoping) is INCREDIBLY deceptive and a complete lie. Cite some ACTUAL fucking evidence on border hoppers. But you wont.

#2 - Your statement in of itself is false. Instead of using feelings, why don't you use facts instead? FACT: 63% of Non-Citizens use government benefits programs compared to 35% of native households. https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

Generally speaking the Center on Immigration Studies is a non-credible source as it is an ultra right wing, nativist think tank with a history of publishing misleading stats or outright lies. If you’re looking for stats on this from a (still conservative!) but more reputable source you can read this Cato study on how immigrants utilize welfare benefits at significantly lower rates than the native born.

https://www.cato.org/publications/i...tion-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-born Americans.

As to the CIS study specifically it is very misleading, almost certainly on purpose considering their history and the... uhmm.. checkered publishing history of its author. The CIS study looks at immigrant led HOUSEHOLDS, not immigrants specifically. This means that in situations where the US citizen children of an immigrant receives benefits it bizarrely counts as 'immigrants' getting benefits and not US persons. The study also does not include programs like social security or medicare despite the fact that beneficiaries of both of those programs are in the aggregate receiving vastly more money from them than they paid in.

It's a garbage study by an advocacy organization.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'm seeing all this shit that it's so hard to get to the US now without dying and suffering because of the Trump admin. Why doesn't Canada offer to fly all the vulnerable immigrants in?

Maybe because it's not their problem. Maybe it's because the US has much, much greater resources to deal with it, like a population of 325M v 37M in Canada.

Trump loves your idea, I'm sure. Maybe he can bully Canada the way he's bullying Mexico, huh?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Generally speaking the Center on Immigration Studies is a non-credible source as it is an ultra right wing, nativist think tank with a history of publishing misleading stats or outright lies. If you’re looking for stats on this from a (still conservative!) but more reputable source you can read this Cato study on how immigrants utilize welfare benefits at significantly lower rates than the native born.

https://www.cato.org/publications/i...tion-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates



As to the CIS study specifically it is very misleading, almost certainly on purpose considering their history and the... uhmm.. checkered publishing history of its author. The CIS study looks at immigrant led HOUSEHOLDS, not immigrants specifically. This means that in situations where the US citizen children of an immigrant receives benefits it bizarrely counts as 'immigrants' getting benefits and not US persons. The study also does not include programs like social security or medicare despite the fact that beneficiaries of both of those programs are in the aggregate receiving vastly more money from them than they paid in.

It's a garbage study by an advocacy organization.

Cato? Dirty fucking commie rat bastards! Hail Trump! He alone can fix it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
Maybe because it's not their problem. Maybe it's because the US has much, much greater resources to deal with it, like a population of 325M v 37M in Canada.

Trump loves your idea, I'm sure. Maybe he can bully Canada the way he's bullying Mexico, huh?

Canada is taking in a ton of immigrants each year. I think we all know why they've been ignoring this. They rather have the cream of the crop, which is no different than some in the Trump camp.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
As to the CIS study specifically it is very misleading, almost certainly on purpose considering their history and the... uhmm.. checkered publishing history of its author. The CIS study looks at immigrant led HOUSEHOLDS, not immigrants specifically. This means that in situations where the US citizen children of an immigrant receives benefits it bizarrely counts as 'immigrants' getting benefits and not US persons.

So the study would be saying the generations following of some immigrants would do worse on various metrics relative to natives. That's still important to know. It would be misleading to exclude it.

The study also does not include programs like social security or medicare despite the fact that beneficiaries of both of those programs are in the aggregate receiving vastly more money from them than they paid in.

It's a garbage study by an advocacy organization.

You still have to provide health care, so a comparison needs to be made to see what the offset is, and it's pretty significant despite them being generally younger.

The shit will hit the fan eventually with chronic untreated problems leading to exploding costs. Either that or the present will be a simple mirage because the government could potentially give them the benefits at some point anyway even allowing them to flood SSDI.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/news/economy/undocumented-immigrants-health-care/index.html

Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,515
29,100
146
Every one of your posts is like a mirror image. You're LITERALLY, hands down, the absolute dumbest person on here. Bar none. Not even Jstorm is as dumb, and that's saying a LOT! You add zilch to any discussion and the average rock has a higher IQ than you.

damn and I remember the time when I was once your favorite!

:( :sob::sweetpotato:
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So the study would be saying the generations following of some immigrants would do worse on various metrics relative to natives. That's still important to know. It would be misleading to exclude it.



You still have to provide health care, so a comparison needs to be made to see what the offset is, and it's pretty significant despite them being generally younger.

The shit will hit the fan eventually with chronic untreated problems leading to exploding costs. Either that or the present will be a simple mirage because the government could potentially give them the benefits at some point anyway even allowing them to flood SSDI.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/news/economy/undocumented-immigrants-health-care/index.html

Aging undocumented immigrants pose costly health care challenge

It's people like Marcos getting screwed, not the rest of us.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Canada is taking in a ton of immigrants each year. I think we all know why they've been ignoring this. They rather have the cream of the crop, which is no different than some in the Trump camp.
Are you an bumbling idiot?? This isn`t Canada`s problem! These immigrants are nowhere near the Canadian border,,,,,,,duh
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
Are you an bumbling idiot?? This isn`t Canada`s problem! These immigrants are nowhere near the Canadian border,,,,,,,duh

Neither are the immigrants Canada is welcoming. Canada has a preference for the cream of the crop. Do you deny that?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
Neither are the immigrants Canada is welcoming. Canada has a preference for the cream of the crop. Do you deny that?
Neither are the immigrants Canada is welcoming. Canada has a preference for the cream of the crop. Do you deny that?
This has nothing to do with the immigration problem on our southern border!
Show me statistics where Canada is turning away immigrants who as you would call them are not the cream of the crop!
Y&ou try to derail threads much?
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,515
756
146
This has nothing to do with the immigration problem on our southern border!
Show me statistics where Canada is turning away immigrants who as you would call them are not the cream of the crop!
Y&ou try to derail threads much?

lol Canada has a BIG preference for the cream of the crop even to the point of asking us to help them at our border with them. The UN is also begging them to open their doors to the huddled masses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...03311fbbbfe_story.html?utm_term=.09d57e10ca0c

In a twist, Canada asks U.S. for help cracking down at its southern border

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...rable-mexican-migrants-from-central-america-2

UN urges Canada to take more vulnerable Mexican migrants from Central America
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,515
29,100
146
I was once told that there is a 2nd amendment solution to our President issue.

...Oh wait! The current president told us that!
 

Zaap

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2008
7,162
424
126
You are mistaken. Immigration wasn't restricted until 1917 & more thoroughly in 1924-

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act

Except for the Chinese who were excluded in 1882.
As usual you and the dumb stump can't follow anything. We've never had unchecked immigration in this country, which was the claim. Previously, very little of it was illegal. People arriving at Ellis Island were not just jumping over a border. Only since 2016 have we reached levels comparative to the absolute high set in 1910.

chartoftheday_11534_us_immigrant_population_hit_record_437_million_in_2016_n.jpg



The funny thing with you is, I KNOW you know that we as a nation don't need these levels of people added to our population. You once posted an article linking to the need of agriculture (the industry people always whine about- falsely as it turns out) having topped out in 1950 at 3 million people. Now, since automation, the number is only 1.3 million people needed in the entire industry. I recall nothing but dumb stuttering and crickets chirping when I asked you to explain then why we need millions and millions more people here, when the main industry you falsely cite as needing them clearly doesn't and never has.

In fact, in the very next thread you'll be one the jackasses whining about automation replacing more jobs- but then in the same breath you're perfectly fine with an ever increasing flood of more people coming in- for what?! So that there are even MORE people to be replaced?

I don't expect most of the other morons to be able to grasp why that 3 million down to 1.3 million fact matters, and proves this is all just a ploy by cheating employers to suppress wages and usher in a new form of economic slavery that most impacts the lower classes. (In fact, the other morons I don't expect to be able to tie their own damn shoes, let alone grasp details of anything.)

But YOU flush, you shitbag- You KNOW BETTER. You fucking know this to be the truth, and you're all for it because you're a shitbag who enjoys whining and finger-pointing over the resulting strife it is and will continue to create. It's why you're the biggest sell-out and chump, purposefully stumping for the big corporations behind this influx of unneeded labor.