Is it really that surprising that most of the people who are so disabled that they are physically unable to be cashiers are never able to successfully re-enter the workforce?

Re the disability issue, what is the argument liberals are making?

Not importing. When did I say importing? Are you saying I want to go into other countries and buy workers to send to the US? Importing workers? What does that even mean?

Not necessarily low skilled. You keep saying it and it keeps not being true.

I think we need a reasonable immigration policy. Not one driven by fear of low skilled workers being imported and taking our jobs. Economics is not zero sum.

Yeah, but that's the modern-day conservatives' go-to move. Truth is trumped by dogma, repeated ad infinitum.

Yes, yes, we're all stupid mouth-breathers. No need to remind us every 3 minutes.

The U.S. will admit more legal immigrants this year than all other countries combined. I don't know who started this idea that the U.S. has an inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic immigration policy, but it's utter nonsense.

Where did I say "inhumane, restrictive, or even xenophobic"? You keep veering off into the ether.

And still more people want to come here. They want to be here. They help us. Why are you against it?

Really, why? It is not concern for low wage workers, so what is it?

And in 778 in called out (again) you were restricting it to low skilled, but it was all immigration I was talking about. And still you zoomed back to low skilled. Why?

You said, "I think we need a reasonable immigration policy. Not one driven by fear of low skilled workers being imported and taking our jobs." That seemed to imply that you believe the current immigration system is unreasonable and/or xenophobic.

You think immigrants take our jobs, I think they add to our economy, especially if we have a good solid safety net to reduce any economic disruption caused by the immigration.

Well, you're probably talking about Joe's poster boy of an economic expert who he widely touted the last time this came up despite never reading anything of his or really knowing anything about the guy or his work. A couple of years later they did an "oopsie" and admitted the numbers were way off.

Really? You don't remember your beloved Borjas and how you acted like he was the greatest expert on this topic up until it came out he used flimsy data to arrive at an erroneous number?

Incidentally (and I speak from some experience representing clients in this area, though not for the past 11 years), qualifying for SSI payments, if you're a younger individual (under age 50) is not easy. I feel that's worth mentioning, in light of Joe's labeling it "the new welfare."

What is your source for this fact? Is this excluding countries in the EU? The US allows about 1 million legal immigrants per year this article Germany was very close to that number recently.

I don't doubt that we have a relatively accomodating immigration policy compared to most countries, but there are still obvious problems. I have a friend who moved to the U.S. with his family when he was 10, grew up to become valedictorian of his high school, graduated with high honors from Harvard, and was studying for his Ph.D in political science when, at age 31, he was detained by INS for weeks and threatened with deportation.

The number of new immigrants to Germany last year topped 958,000, which is 20 percent more than 2010. Another reason for the exceptionally high immigration rate was the end of restrictions on people looking to immigrate from new EU member states in eastern and southeastern Europe: Poland, Hungary and Romania.

Overall, Germany's population is estimated to have reached 81.8 million last year while its unemployment rate - unlike those of its European neighbours - has actually fallen to 6.8%.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.

Really? You think you came off well in that thread? You were utterly and totally wrong on virtually every single point you tried to make and what's more you were revealed to know virtually nothing on any of the topics you had such strong opinions on.

You have a very strange habit of posting things that prove the other person's point while stridently claiming they prove yours.

The premise was that low-skilled illegal immigrants undercut the wages of native-born low-skilled workers. You post an article quoting "America's leading authority on the economics of immigration" as saying low-skilled illegal immigrants had an 8.2 percent negative impact. Then you come back and say, Wait a minute, they revised the numbers! It was only a 4 percent negative impact.

How is this a "gotcha"? Obviously, negative 4 is smaller than negative 8, but it's still negative, which was the point all along.

Well, they actually don't really know what the number is. They ran a simulation with certain assumptions and found that the impact would be 3.6% over 20 years. But be my guest and hold on to that new number like your life depended upon it despite the fact that they have already admitted they used flimsy data once.

And an update from the last thread about immigration from Mexico.

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—most of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed, according to a new analysis of government data from both countries by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center.

The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Over the same period, the population of authorized immigrants from Mexico rose modestly, from 5.6 million in 2007 to 5.8 million in 2011.

So once again Germany appears to be a huge counter point to your grand opinions.

Germany has been looking for skilled workers, and last year saw the highest rate of immigration in more than 15 years. More and more people are coming from crisis-wracked EU countries.

[...]

More than half of those seeking Mourmouri's advice are highly qualified.

"Many of these people are engineers, doctors and academics who simply have no opportunities at home. There are also a lot of young people," said Mourmouris.

German business and industry are glad to see the skilled workers. "Due to Germany's aging population, the country needs some 2 million skilled workers from abroad," said Dieter Hundt, president of the German Employers Association. Workers are especially in demand in the technical sector.

So because immigration from Mexico has declined it obviously means that immigrants have suppressed wages? Nice leap based on no evidence on than your really strong feelings on the subject.

So what about the other half? Once again Joe hand waves away anything he doesn't like but if he spots a speck of sand on the floor that happens to look like something he stridently believes in he'll grab it and wave it around to the entire world like he just found a 10 pound bar of gold.

For the first time, the influx of Asians moving to the U.S. has surpassed that of Hispanics, reflecting a slowdown in illegal immigration while American employers increase their demand for high-skilled workers.

An expansive study by the Pew Research Center details what it describes as "the rise of Asian-Americans," a highly diverse and fast-growing group making up nearly 6 percent of the U.S. population. Mostly foreign-born and naturalized citizens, their numbers have been boosted by increases in visas granted to specialized workers and to wealthy investors as the U.S. economy becomes driven less by manufacturing and more by technology.

International students studying at U.S. colleges and universities also are now most likely to come from Asian countries, roughly 6 in 10, and some of them are able to live and work in the U.S. after graduation. Asian students, both foreign born and U.S. born, earned a plurality (45 percent) of all engineering Ph.D.s in 2010, as well as 38 percent of doctorates in math and computer sciences and 33 percent of doctorates in the physical sciences.

In recent years, more than 60 percent of Asian immigrants ages 25 to 64 have graduated from college, double the share for new arrivals from other continents.

As a whole, the share of higher-skilled immigrants in the U.S. holding at least a bachelor's degree now outpaces those lacking a high-school diploma, 30 percent to 28 percent.

I was replying to 'Bitter Mouse's calls for more immigration, including more low-skilled immigration. It's simply ludicrous to suggest that adding more low-skilled workers at a time of high unemployment among low-skilled workers would have anything other than a negative effect on wages.

But that's not remotely what happened in the U.S. over the past decade when it comes to illegal immigration. There haven't been any doctors or engineers swimming across the Rio Grande.

Oh really?

If it is simply ludicrous I would think you could actually cite some evidence besides just saying over and over how insane or ludicrous it is.

Re the disability issue, what is the argument liberals are making? That the system is not scammed royally by many people who are able to work claiming disability?

He seems to think that the demand for immigrant labor is driven by the supply of immigrant labor, rather than the more obvious fact that the supply for immigrant labor is driven by the demand for it.

I've taken a lot of heat here for advocating higher wages at the lower end of the job market. So has 'snapper.'

Unless the "safety net" pays less than the lowest-paid job, the system you describe has all sorts of problematic disincentives. (Can we agree that it's repugnant for people in the "safety net" to make more for not working than people who bust their butts as housekeepers, farm workers, etc.?)

And, when the immigrants arrive their presence - buying houses, food, clothing, needing haircuts, and so on - sparks additional demand. The number of jobs is not fixed. If it was additional laborers in an economy would do what he seems to think it does, but economies are more complex than that.

there’s a possibility that Romney paid very little (i.e. less than 10%) income taxes during the 2002 to 2009 period in many of those years. It is quite possible that some of those years could have approached zero. There’s a lot of different ways to make that happen, through standard structuring/gifting, offshore planning, charitable contributions, and favorable recent tax laws for carried interest and capital gains. I think you should try and pivot the discussion around “were these income taxes that Romney paid” and not “did Romney pay taxes.”

* * *

Yes, but you’re missing the piece on the timeline where Romney cut a retirement deal with his partners to buy out his shares in the Bain Capital management company. Where it could be zero is if Romney had previously contributed his shares of the Bain Capital management company that he controlled 100% of into his IRA over the years.

* * *

This is pure speculation — but I think you if you and your team worked a little harder talking to estate planning lawyers and trust experts who work with senior private equity partners and professionals (good luck getting them on the record, but it is really much more nuanced for private equity than your everyday run of the mill wealthy individual), you could sketch out a number of hypothetical situations and I think add more credibility to Reid’s position.

It’s entirely possible Romney paid zero income taxes, and possibly nominal capital gains taxes (i.e. less than 15 percent). In fact, since he wasn’t being paid income but presumably was liquidating his stake in Bain Capital, in the perspective of the IRS, he wasn’t earning any income — just selling assets (Bain management company back to his other partners).

It's much like the voter fraud argument. The cost (in terms of legitimately qualified voters being discouraged from exercising their voting rights) greatly exceeds the benefit (eliminating what amounts to an exceptionally tiny number of cheats even with the most generous estimate).

My mother tried to get disability (before realizing what the government means by disabled), and I've seen the forms and have some insight into the process. It is a substantial undertaking to demonstrate complete inability to work, and it's not like the government just takes your word for it.

I can't say how much that's changed in 11 years (I'll research it when I get a few minute), but as seen here, your "10 million" figure is wrong; the combined total of those receiving "SSI only" or "SSI and Social Security" is around 7 million. EDIT: 9 million, if you include those over 65, but I don't think that's who you were talking about.

If he's counting the over 65s, then that would probably account for the "huge uptick" in SSI benefits. Something about Boomers hitting retirement age, etc.

#842 Can't find the article right now, but I recall reading in the Economist that a very high percentage of California police officers retire with disability benefits.

I am President Obama’s classmate at Columbia University, Class of ’83. I am also one of the most accurate Las Vegas oddsmakers and prognosticators. Accurate enough that I was awarded my own star on the Las Vegas Walk of Stars. And I smell something rotten in Denmark. Obama has a big skeleton in his closet. It’s his college records. Call it “gut instinct” but my gut is almost always right. Obama has a secret hidden at Columbia- and it’s a bad one that threatens to bring down his presidency. Gut instinct is how I’ve made my living for 29 years since graduating Columbia
Now all of this mystery could be easily and instantly dismissed if Obama released his Columbia transcripts to the media. But even after serving as President for 3 1/2 years he refuses to unseal his college records. Shouldn’t the media be as relentless in pursuit of Obama’s records as Romney’s? Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

...

The first question I’d ask is, if you had great grades, why would you seal your records? So let’s assume Obama got poor grades. Why not release the records? He’s president of the free world, for gosh sakes. He’s commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. Who’d care about some poor grades from three decades ago, right? So then what’s the problem? Doesn’t that make the media suspicious? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

Third, how did Obama pay for all these fancy schools without coming from a wealthy background? If he had student loans or scholarships, would he not have to maintain good grades?

I can only think of one answer that would explain this mystery.

Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen? When he returned to live with his grandparents in Hawaii or as he neared college-age preparing to apply to schools, did he ever change his citizenship back? I’m betting not.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

B) His grades were not those typical of what we understand it takes to get into Harvard Law School.

C) He attended Columbia as a foreign exchange student.

D) He paid little for either undergraduate college or Harvard Law School because of foreign aid and scholarships given to a poor foreign students like this kid Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

If you think I’m “fishing” then prove me wrong. Open up your records Mr. President. What are you afraid of?

#842 Can't find the article right now, but I recall reading in the Economist that a very high percentage of California police officers retire with disability benefits.

Federal benefits?

Theres' been stories in NYC about a disability "ring" involving a few corrupt ex-cops, and a few corrupt MDs and attys.

If he's counting the over 65s, then that would probably account for the "huge uptick" in SSI benefits. Something about Boomers hitting retirement age, etc.

If you could unseal Obama’s Columbia University records I believe you’d find that:

A) He rarely ever attended class.

Secondly, if he had poor grades at Occidental, how did he get admitted to an Ivy League university in the first place? And if his grades at Columbia were awful, how’d he ever get into Harvard Law School? So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

An old parasite is still a parasite. Have they stopped making ice floes?

August 08, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4203057)
Wayne Allen Root, coming strong with the crazy:

Do they actually take attendance and note it in your record at Ivy League schools? When I was in college a particular professor may take attendance for his/her own purposes. I'm pretty sure I took attendance for the Speech Com classes I taught, but that never went into anyone's records. The only thing you got in your transcripts was grades. And if he "rarely went to class" and still had good grades, who would even care?

Shouldn’t they be digging into Obama’s past–beyond what he has written about himself–with the same boundless enthusiasm as Mitt’s?

So again those grades must have been great, right? So why spend millions to keep them sealed?

In 2007 my brother was involved in an auto accident in rural north GA. The truck he was in hit the median at speed, rolled 15-20 times, killing the driver and leaving my brother essentially dead on the pavement. He was helicoptered to trauma in Atlanta where he was unconscious for 32 days. He had spinal fusion on the C1 and C2 vertebrae, a trach tube to breathe, and a fluid valve to drain his lungs while he was bed ridden. He rehabbed for 12-18 months after coming out of the coma, has significant personality changes due to blunt force concussive damage to his brain, and has days where he simply can not stand, much less do basic labor, for more than a few hours at a time.

It took him 3 years to get through SSI and validate that he was, in fact, disabled.

I do not know how the acceptance of international students works at Obama's schools, but I do know how it works at several NYS schools and... no, being a "foreign exchange student" does not get you a "leg up" insofar as admissions and finances are concerned- in fact it does the nothing or even the opposite.

And so your attempted refutation of my point by telling me I am focusing on the "scammers in the margins" is followed by you posting evidence of activity in the margins.

Like I said, it's been a while since I practiced in this area, so I can't speak from firsthand experience in terms of how leniently my clients are being treated at the application and appeals stages, but historically, it's been the case that SSI requires disability such that you really can't do any class of job (i.e., can't stand for 8 hours, can't sit still for 8 hours, can't do manual labor, can't do anything requiring fine motor skills; education level comes into it too)

Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?

Serious question...

Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?

Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?

I understand - and was waiting - for this point. It simply brings home the persecution philosophy that drives all your positions: It is not the minority but the majority of people who are trying to screw me - and all like me - with the help of the government, which also exists solely to screw me.

How can you wonder why people find such positions untenable?

Maybe, but I bet *those* people don't contribute more to society than they receive

I asked about about the low skilled immigrants coming to Germany and you replied that it doesn't matter because of the high skilled workers coming and that it doesn't apply to America. I gave a link that shows it does apply to America but apparently you want to hand wave it away because you're bringing up things from a decade ago when talking about what we need to do today.

I'm pretty sure Joe's intransigence and aversion to any sort of fact/statistical based reasoning on the immigration/jobs debate is a function of his religious like faith in supply side economics. It certainly looks, at casual blush, like his position there is a simple inversion of traditional supply-sider argumentation re: "job creation." He seems to think that the demand for immigrant labor is driven by the supply of immigrant labor, rather than the more obvious fact that the supply for immigrant labor is driven by the demand for it.

Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?

I need to start lying on more job applications.

I was a classmate of Zach Braff and somewhat knew him (a friend dated him briefly)... Anyone wish to offer me a check to spill some of his college beans?

Immigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

[...]

Mexicans were most likely to use means-tested benefit programs, with 57 percent, while 6 percent of those from the United Kingdom did. The rate for native-born Americans is 23 percent.

Being deemed overqualified is usually worse than being deemed underqualified.

Oh. A story from *Drudge.* Let me race over there for that sort of unbiased analysis.

And just for kicks, it's a link to the Moonies Times. Pass.

Yeah, we all know how Drudge does a lot of first-person reporting.

Yup, because your liberal rags certainly don't have the guts to explore non-P.C. topics.

Drudge sets narrative for the echo chamber on the right. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a link to the Moonies via Drudge is going to be something that leads to legitimate analysis is to belie your own neck-deep swimming in the pool of Kool-Aid.

If you define "legitimate analysis" as "discussed in the NYT," then of course it won't. The liberal rags you prefer are the Pravda of our times.

CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials. CIS' creation was part of a carefully thought-out strategy aimed at creating a set of complementary institutions to cultivate the nativist cause — groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA. As is shown in Tanton's correspondence, lodged in the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Tanton came up with the idea in the early 1980s for "a small think tank" that would "wage the war of ideas."

Through it all, CIS pumped out study after study aimed at highlighting immigration's negative effects.

These studies have hardly been neutral. One of them concludes that because foreign women ("Third World gold-diggers") can obtain work permits by marrying American citizens, it's obvious that fraudulent marriage applications are "prevalent among terrorists." Another claims that because many immigrants have worked in Georgia since 2000, it's clear that unemployment among less educated native workers is up. A third says that because immigration levels have been high recently, immigrants make up a growing share of those drawing welfare.

But every one these claims, each of them at the heart of a different recent report from CIS, are either false or virtually without any supporting evidence. That came to fore again last September, when CIS organized a panel to accompany the release of yet another new report, this one claiming that municipalities in substantial numbers were permitting non-citizens to vote. When challenged, the panelists could only come up with a single possible example of the purported trend.

"CIS' attempts to blame immigrants for all of the U.S.'s problems have been laughable," said Angela Kelley of the Immigration Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., organization that uses well-known scholars to produce reports on immigration-related issues and has debunked many of the studies issued by CIS. "It is clear that CIS is not interested in serious research or getting the facts straight."

And to complete the circle-jerk nature of your link, Drudge links to the Moonbats who cite a study from an immigration "think tank" run by Mark Krikorian (who makes his day to day living writing up partisan bits for the National Review and NRO.)

Drudge, pumping a story by the Washington Times sourcing a faux think tank? What are the odds?

Note: All quotes from the Southern Law Poverty Center.
Here is the link.

Good grief, you're refuting data from the U.S. Census Bureau with quotes from the nutjobs at SLPC?

Now who's "hand-waving"? The data was straight out of the U.S. census. Do you believe the Obama administration rigged the data?

No. I am refuting the biased analysis of census data. I am sure the Census data is pretty darn good - though it does tend to undercount immigrants and other populations. Something they have tried to correct for and the GOP has stubbornly fought against - but that is a different argument.

So you think the SLPC and the Immigration Policy Center are less valid than the Washington Times and the CIS? It doesn't strike you as interesting that the CIS has an avowed "Low Immigration aim" and was founded by a clear racist?