Arrest made in Mollie Tibbetts murder, suspect held on federal immigration detainer, reports say


Not when close to 40% of their citizen population is Hispanic. It makes no sense.

There’s also a distinction of class that needs to be made, and who happens to occupying it.
Something that the Left frequently forgets.

Dude? You’re in no place here.

You’ve tried to tell me:

  1. You can’t make comparisons to previous immigration waves on the level of violence or culture.
  2. That even Nigerians were bad (aping something Trump said).
  3. That nothing in manufacturing is worth losing.

Now here you are, conflating genes and race as the same thing. Which now that I’ve it pointed out, I’m sure you’ll change your tune on as well.

No, we already covered this, you’re talking about prison statistics, for an organization that doesn’t enforce law at an everyday level.

They enforce law disproportionally on crime and organizations that travels between states, or are in some way too big for local law enforcement to handle.

The Feds have a skewed pictured, because they have a skewed responsibility, by design.

Dude, Civil War, that makes a difference. We egg on, arm & supply the War on Drugs there, and it’s had longer lasting, and far more reaching effects than even Boko Haram.

Can’t stack the deck, and yet claim you’re making an apples to apples comparison.

And even then, why do I care? You don’t answer this Cwolf. Why does this matter? Productivity is productivity, a gain is a gain.

I’ll take both please. This isn’t a competition, we can use both.

A 93% worker participation, is still 93% worker participation, they add into our economic system.
Again, as Texas also showed, 17x more than they take in welfare.

Meaning the economy (in this regard), is far bigger, far more reaching, and far more active, than our government’s capability to screw it up with its “programs”.

The fact that Mexicans leave States with high welfare for those with less, shows us that. They follow economic forces, not Government designs.

Your stats weren’t relevant to your own point, and your own arguments are 10 years out of date.

Mexican immigration peaked in 2007, we’re now being flushed with Asians.

And why? Because things in Mexico got better, they urbanized, & their birth rate fell to the damn floor.
So more and more of the people coming here, are coming from places farther and farther away, while Mexicans continue to shrink.

So what, exactly, are you ******* to me about? Your problem was solved. We’re getting less Mexicans. Nature took its damn course.

And it’s all thanks to remittances & trade, making them more like us.


And I’ll just go ahead and ask; wut?

Have you read Douthat on this? Seems to me that he’s way more into your thinking than mine.


We GET it, AS. You don’t give a tinker’s dam if the country is flooded with unskilled, uneducated, ignorant people intent on getting in on the government’s goodies. Will you PLEASE move on to something a bit less anger-producing?


You mean the Italians?

No double standards Dave; you can’t tell me education is necessary, when it wasn’t necessary before, under worse circumstances.

Welfare should be dealt with, but it’s not an excuse to interfere with the economy or labor markets.

If you’re going after people on someone’s farm, you’re clearly going after the latter, not the former.

If you want to clear out those who’ve been unemployed for several months, fine.


Will you PLEASE stop it??? No one is talking about “Italians,” except you and conditions were MARKEDLY different when they were coming in than they are today. For one thing, there were thousands more unskilled jobs to be filled then and education was considerably less critical.

You’ve made it perfectly clear to the rest of us that you are FINE with these people flooding in from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean without skills, education or even the DESIRE to work for a living, but intent on getting in on all the free stuff our government supplies. Almost 70% of recent “immigrants”, both legal AND illegal, are getting SOME sort of welfare benefits and that’s simply WRONG. Yes, we need to stop providing it to them, but we ALSO have to secure the border and remove other incentives for coming here uninvited–such as AMERICANS (and “legal” immigrants) wanting cheap labor. We need to make e-verify mandatory and fine out of business any company that refuses to use it and hires illegals anyway.


Because you’re making a double standard Dave, and you’re not answering for it.

Not being educated, does not prevent people from adding to the society or the economy.

Equally, everything in the past was worse.

It was harder to control people, harder to police crime, or prevent viral outbreaks. Shootings, lynchings, and bombings were all more common, per capita, and these immigrants were more likely to compete with Americans for the same work, and were more often illiterate.

Everything was worse, the waves were bigger, we as a population were smaller. The immigrants brought crime, disease, and old scores to settle with one another. They settled into conclaves, formed societies to promote & keep their cultures alive, had mutual aid societies that acted along sectarian lines.

And yet, we absorbed them.


It seems to me Dave that you, just like most, never went back into history to ask how things actually were, and how the real problems “rifraff” immigration presented, was solved.

You assume things now are different or not working, because you don’t even know what constitutes as “normal” for assimilation. You don’t have a standard to judge by.


I don’t recall doing this, but I can certainly credit you with tipping me off that Nigerian immigrants are wealthier and more productive than our native citizens. Something that the stats I looked up actually verified(unlike Mexicans).

No, because we have a limited number of people to take in. So we have to choose between candidates. This is how nations handle immigration.

Not even close to 17x. They said they did not look at the household, but rather only employed individuals. They did not examine healthcare expenditures on the household. They did not examine the extraordinary cost of their childcare/education. They looked at a couple of state run programs(mostly food stamp usage). And that by the time we examine households they’re “producing” about 5x what they receive in aid.

And it misses the other critical point of consumption. They are consuming more than they produce. Which means they are not a net boon to productivity, but are a drag on productivity, because they have to take other worker’s productivity away in order to consume as much as they do.

So they are not net producers. They are net consumers. Why would you import people who consume more than they produce, and do so only by extracting resources from his peers.

We should be prioritizing people who fit our economic needs. Saying that random chance has drawn a better lot recently doesn’t fix the systemic problem.


There’s no reason to have that limit, and no reason to expect Nigerians alone would fill it, so no. We can, and should, have both. Growth is growth. A net positive is a net positive.

As a fact of policy, we should keep out the bad actors, and let everyone else in.

Just like a mall. Or city states, who are known to operate better than nation states.

Or any nation that embraced free trade, and high immigration. Like Australia.

Yes they did:

So let’s go through it, $1.16 Billion impact for the State, $1.44 in unreimbursed costs for the Counties (including healthcare and education), subtracted from $1.58 Billion of proven tax revenues, gives a net fiscal impact of $1.02 Billion.

The estimate of what the 1.4 million illegals contributed to the Texas economy in 2005? $17.7 Billion.

Nope, not unless you’re saying that of Hispanics generally, and in the report they are not:

Seems to me that all you’re going to fall back on here is that they produce less. And to which I will answer again: “So what”?

Most Chinese laborers produce less than we do, doesn’t change the fact that having a few million more of them makes your economy bigger and more productive in absolute terms.

And why? Because economics relies on human action; more humans, more action. Economics by its very nature is pro-humanist.

It’s not random chance, it’s self-selection. Economies organize from the bottom up.

There is no “prioritization” when Government does not know who or what is needed in real time. Equally, the argument is incoherent in the face of the fact that manpower, is still the primary reason immigration occurs. Both for them coming here, and us hiring them

They are in a place where we out competed their domestic agricultural markets, and put them out of work. We are in a place, where we just need people willing to go to our rural areas, do the work, and do it consistently.

There are counties that are depopulated, that run industries Americans refuse to move to, to work in, even when they’re right next door and they’re unemployment rate is sky high, and the employer offers free housing.

This has been the reality for decades, no amount of rhetoric can change that. When you refuse to let people hire this labor, it just results in the business running at less than capacity, or shutting down. This helps no one.


Yes AS, because > 50% of all of our immigrants have come from one single country in the last 30 years, it must always come from one single country in the future.

Right, 17.7 billion / 1.4 million = $12,642 (or $48,040 per household)

So, your estimate is that the average Mexican household receives only $2,825 per year in food stamps, healthcare, and education spending on the adults and their children.

Even though the average Mexican immigrant has 2.2 children under the age of 18. So somehow, they only cost $900 to educate, and to provide healthcare. Pretty amazing. In Texas, children are cheaper to care for than in the Congo.


Were not going to fill even present numbers just from places you deem worthwhile, so the point is moot.
There’s no reason why we don’t want both. A Net positive, is a net positive.

We have less, if they aren’t here, in absolute terms. That’s what matters. Equal is the point that they’re the ones we find most of our entrepreneurs from, at rates higher than the native population.

K, so? Notice, your estimate, doesn’t invalidate the “family” one above, I hope you realize that.

I don’t see how you’re calculating that.

This is a chart you need to look at:

The back door use for illegal of Foodstamps is having a child who is a citizen, but that’s only ~40% of them.

Beyond that, the department of agriculture reports there’s a severe reluctance of illegals to use even portions of food stamps they do qualify for themselves, because they believe it’ll either worsen their immigration status or give the Government a way to track them.

Still, your estimate might be in the ball park for those who do use it, because there’s the maximum (monthly and yearly) amount to consider:


That’s for 1995, feel free to find 2005 numbers if you like.

Again, I think the factor you’ve overlooked here is, are their kids citizens or not?

If 40% are, that messes with your estimate.


In truth, AS, there are NO illegals with children who are citizens. The mistake that’s been made is granting “citizenship” to any child born on U.S. soil. That’s NOT what the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments ever intended. Illegals are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” of the States where they live. They are STILL subject to the jurisdiction of the countries of which they are CITIZENS…NOT the country that they’ve illegally invaded.


In present legal fact, they are, and it means something different when you’re trying to calculate cost or benefits someone is using.

The 13th was used to validate citizenship of people from Asia, overturning decisions that said they weren’t, so the precedent was set.


Then WHY is it that NO ONE cites the 13th as “precedent” for the claim of “citizenship” for present-day illegals? They INVARIABLY cite the 14th and the 14th DOES NOT grant American-soil citizenship to illegals’ kids.


Ah, sorry, my mistake, it was the 14th:


And the court was WRONG in it’s interpretation…as is Wikipedia, for that matter. The 14th was intended to certify the citizenship of former SLAVES…not anyone who happened to be here when they were born.


They were talking about this giving citizenship to “Asiatics” and “Mongoloids” during the debates, and they specifically outlined it giving equal rights women, as that was equally fashionable at the time.

So no Dave, it was meant for more than Slaves.


BS. “Equal rights for women” was hardly “fashionable” in the late-middle 19th Century when the 14th was passed OR when Wong was decided. Women’s suffrage didn’t come about until 1920 or so. It was ALWAYS intended to “naturalize” ex-slaves and give them full citizenship rights…period. The 14th Amendment, that is.


Then you haven’t read the debates, nor do you understand what Republicans were thinking at the time.


Yes, we could. There are about 8 million people who want to immigrate here annually. They can’t get in because we’re flooding the process with Pedro’s grandma. Because we give priority to family of immigrants so they can build occupation zones, rather than integrate and provide useful services.

They are not in 100% of cases. Birthright citizenship was for the children of former slaves - not random people who popped out a baby while on a particular chunk of land. They did apply it to Asians around 1900 - people who had been established here for quite a while. Not simply standing on American soil. Nor were they here illegally. So there were numerous differences.

They were primarily looking to punish the Confederate states for Lincoln’s assassination. Lincoln’s post-slavery plan wasn’t to make former slaves full right citizens - it was to send them all to Liberia to build up a huge American colony/state in Africa. Booth ironically kept millions of former slaves right where they were.