Talk:Whose Expertise Inspired Our Immigration Laws?
From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
Your contribution is welcome. Sign your contribution with 4 tildes (~~~~). The simplest way to contribute is on this "Discussion" page, which is like a place to leave comments. Or you can clarify something on the article page, from fixing typos to adding a paragraph, or a section, or a whole new article. For suggestions how, please see The Forum#Ways you can contribute. For sample verbiage and codes to help you do this, that you can copy, paste, and adapt, see Template.
Details only fool the gullible
Don't get bogged down in the details, which are there only to fool the gullible. Look at the big picture. When the people who control money wanted lots of population for farms, mines, soldiers, etc. they had their Billy Grahams of the time preach "be fruitful and multiply." Now, they need fewer people thanks to mechanization, computerization, and especially too many old people they want to not support with Medicare, Social Security, and etc. promises to voters that are for suckering votes and always have been. Now, they want lower population. Isn't it obvious? That is why their media now preaches the virtues of killing babies and turning as many people as possible into AIDS infested perverts, so they don't multiply and instead die off as fast as possible. The only reason they don't want a big kill-off war, which was the old way to cut down the population, is that now the Nuclear Winter would ruin their economy. So, they scam where they can. By letting in a bunch of cheap labor with the mentality of peasant serfs, and getting the American Morons to kill their babies, they replace the US population with cheap imports that undercut people who ordinarily would have the tradition of patriotic minutemen. The goal is to make you cheap, dead, and not reproducing meanwhile. Don't waste time on details designed for distraction.
Randy Crawford ?-IA, Anti-abortion, 3/16/2016 8:12 pm
Response: The "people who control the money" are, ultimately, "we the people"
Let me see if I understand your argument. "They" want citizens to kill off citizen babies to reduce the patriotic population and replace them with mind-numbed immigrant peasant "serfs" so "they" will have a stronger economy, since our economy no longer requires people, now that we have technology? And the way they deceive voters into killing their children is by tricking them into studying details?
If this is not your argument I hope you will clarify it. Meanwhile, if it really is, and if you mean it to be somehow a response to an article observing that voters and lawmakers trust the claims of Undocumented Economists rather than real economists on economic questions, then I must presume when you say "don't get distracted by details designed to deceive you" you are equating "details" with education, in this case about economics, so your message is "don't go to college. And don't trust people who go there. Learning about reality only deceives you. You will be much wiser if you remain ignorant."
Of course many things learned in college do not make one wiser, and do not match reality. But that apparently is not what you are talking about. Your broadside seems to be against the entire concept of learning. Learning is what makes citizens kill their babies.
If that is not what you mean, I hope you will clarify.
I take it as obvious that the "people who control the money" are, ultimately, "we the people". Voters. And the only way money is "controlled" by a fraction of the people is when voters do not study the details of their government and economy, forfeiting their stewardship to the few who are paying attention. Someone has to make the decisions that run our economy. If not everyone will pay attention, a few must. How much can we fault those few for making decisions for us - because we won't participate in making them ourselves - which they perceive to be in their own interest? The only logically possible way to have economy policy that is fair to all, therefore, is for all to study its details and engage with each other in discussing facts and solutions.
I don't know who actually believes we can have a growing technology with a shrinking population. I suppose some do. But that is economically ignorant, if I understand the subject correctly. Dave Leach R-IA BibleLover-musician-grandpa (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2016 (EDT)
Our own liberties depend on restricting others' liberties
Dave, I love you, but I don't agree. I think we should have a restricted immigration policy so that our country's liberties can stay in tact.
Furthermore, I do not agree with giving welfare to illegal immigrants, education to illegals without charge, food stamps to illegals, etc. etc.
We the people have worked for our Social Security and trusted the government to treat our FICA (big mistakes) accounts as a sort of loan to government to be paid with interest upon our retirement. Illegal immigration will break the Social Security accounts, we haven't had a raise in 3 years, and medicare. I do not agree with Socialized medicine or depending upon the government, but since we were forced to invest and trust this government with money that could have otherwise been invested and made a handsome retirement, instead, the elderly are living in poverty. We must take care of our own and prevent slipping into a globalist\one world society.
IMMIGRATION WITHOUT ASSIMILATION IS INVASION. That's what I believe. Regina Dinwiddie, R-KS extremely prolife, 3/17/2016 5:59 pm
Response: It is to the extent we honor the liberty of others that we secure our own
I wonder what you "don't agree" with? The article observes that voters and lawmakers trust the claims of Undocumented Economists rather than real economists on economic questions, and suggests we would better secure our own interests by trusting those who have most studied a subject to have the best grasp of it. Is that the suggestion you dispute? You think we secure our own best interests by following the relatively ignorant? Or do you dispute the fact that the economic dimension of our national immigration debate is dominated by Undocumented Economists? If the latter, please follow the links. The college majors of America's leading half-dozen Undocumented Economists are very easy to verify.
Or is it the consensus of real economists, that the economic impact of immigration isn't at all negative as Undocumented Economists insist, that you dispute?
My article did not, of course, say anything about welfare or food stamps. I have written about that elsewhere. Such as http://www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Win-WinSolution.pdf. But a word about Social Security: according to the Social Security Administration. Consider that every undocumented worker with a fake ID has 15% of his wages deducted for Social Security, very few of whom ever acquire the legal status that would qualify them to ever take anything. This adds up to $13 billion a year according to the Boston Globe, one of many articles that come up when I google "windful for social security from undocumented immigrants". An excerpt:
- The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration recently told Vice News that, out of the estimated 7 million unauthorized workers currently in the US labor force, about 3 million use either false or expired Social Security numbers. The payroll taxes paid by these unauthorized workers go into the Social Security’s “earnings suspense file” — in effect, money without a lawful home. “You could say legitimately that had we not received the contributions that we have had in the past from undocumented immigrants . . . that would of course diminish our ability to be paying benefits....
You are a Bible believer. You shouldn't need SSA testimony, or evidence from economists, to know what we give others is the measure of what we receive. Our Savior told us that plainly.
- Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.