It succeeded; the CBP itself outright credited the policy for the success they saw. Illegal immigration didn’t come back until after they changed the law.
Yeah. It was changed BECAUSE it was a failure. It didn’t prevent illegal immigration. It ENHANCED it.
You mean the illegal immigrants who got their tuition paid by me at the point of a gun?
Yes I expect you would prefer them, they suck up even more resources so they expedite the dependency cycle even faster and ensure the uninterrupted dominance of the Extreme Left.
CBP said it was the reason illegal immigration fell, and that it would rise if the law was repealed. The Congressional commission that evaluated the policy in the 80’s determined the same thing.
Why should anyone get their tuition paid by someone else at the point of a gun?
People who do, are disproportionately native & middle class.
As Milton Friedman observed, it’s a wealth transfer from the poor & rich, to the middle. And it shouldn’t be tolerated.
Because we are governed by people who think the whole world has a fundamental right to come here and take whatever they want, they are the dream team of your Ideology and they have gleaned permanent power as a result of embracing your vision fully and without reservation.
No, I’m talking about the same people Milton Friedman talked about; and he used himself as an example of the people it benefited.
And he didn’t think it was worth it. Why does it happen? Why do we create benefits like this that disproportionately takes money from the poor & rich, and gives to the middle?
“Gives to the middle,” Gracie? Are you REALLY seriously suggesting that the middle in America benefits from both the poor and the wealthy? Why is the middle class DISAPPEARING in the U.S. if that were even remotely true?
That’s not an answer, it’s a cop-out. Who cares if the recipients are “disproportionately native & middle class”? Illegals add to the burden. Maybe we SHOULD scrap social welfare programs but we have them now, in the real world, and they ain’t going away anytime soon. Illegals add to the taxpayer burden. Please don’t repeat any phony statistics that confuse legal immigrants with illegals. Illegals add to the taxpayer burden which is collected at gunpoint PERIOD
There’s nothing “disproportional” to use of welfare. Not when 67% of ALL illegal households are on some form of the dole and they represent considerably LESS than 67% of the total population and nowhere NEAR 67% of natives and middle class LEGAL residents are on the dole. Try to remember that Social Security and Medicare are NOT part of “the dole,” other than those riding either without ever being legally eligible for them according to how they were original intended and passed.
ANd this sidesteps the real issue:
This is harmful, and unsustainable, with or without illegals using it.
It’s perfectly fine not to offer illegals in-state tuition or stipends, or pell grants (certain states already do that), but that doesn’t by itself solve the problem. The problem exists even without illegals using it, even before illegals used it.
You need to have the courage to deal with the welfare itself. Acknowledge the distortions it causes.
Yes there is; Natives use more and use it mroe often, because they better understand our system, and qualify for more.
And, most of it is a wealth transfer from the poor & rich, to the middle class. To include social security.
Again, Milton Friedman was the one making these observations, and other economists like Thomas Sowell concur the same thing.
BS, AS! 67% of illegals are on SOME form of welfare assistance. Nowhere NEAR that percentage of legal aliens and natives are on welfare. Yes, there are fewer illegals than legals and natives. So what? Illegals DISPROPORTIONATELY use more welfare than either legals or natives…period…and what THEY are using is a DRAIN on the nation that’s unnecessary and SHOULD be as illegal as the illegals themselves are, but obviously isn’t.
Yes they are. Legals use more, because they both qualify for more, and they’re aware of more.
Illegals tend to use basic services; legals tend to use out and out welfare.
Hence why, to draw on another comparison Milton Friedman made; immigration is good, so long as its illegal.
As they use not just less welfare in $ terms, but less forms of it.
IF Friedman ever said that, he’s an idiot. I’ve NEVER denied that legals and natives tend to use more welfare than illegals in QUANTITY. As a percentage of their presence in the country, they DON’T, however. THAT dubious “honor” belongs firmly in the illegal camp. Legal and native citizens, in DOLLARS, obviously use more welfare than illegals, but as a percentage, illegals are MUCH more prone to take advantage of our welfare system. Nowhere NEAR 67% of natives and legals are utilizing some form of welfare, and that percentage has been steadily DECLINING since Trump became President.
So I should be fine with having my property stolen as long as at least 51 percent of what is stolen is taken by citizens, the only justification for being angry about illegals stealing my property would be if they stole more than citizens steal from me.
Of all the ridiculous arguments that I hear from the open borders crowd this particular one is my favorite; no person with a valid position would ever offer such a ridiculous defense for their position.
And in type; they use more forms. Even citizen children of illegals are more likely to use these programs, than non-citizen children.
BTW, between SS and welfare; Friedman would call SS the bigger problem.
? I’m not saying tolerate illegal immigration. Or their welfare use.
I’m saying replace illegal immigration, with legal immigration. Don’t use law to manipulate the labor supply; it’s bad practice, it grows the instrumentality of the state, and it erodes the rights of individuals.
It doesn’t matter what you’re trying to fix by doing that; the “cure” here is worse than the disease.
BS. Friedman is just another practitioner of the “dismal science” who doesn’t understand Social Security. However badly it was conceived, it’s BECOME a government-operated, retirement savings plan. The money IN the so-called “trust fund” is SUPPOSED to be used to supplement the incomes of those too elderly to work any longer. The doofus Democrats decided, with all that extra money floating around, why not use some of it to buy the votes of the poor or disabled, too, so they expanded the number of those who were eligible for SS payments to include orphans, those with “nervous problems” and the simply lazy.
Congratulations, AS, once again you have successfully deflected the conversation from pertinent facts to irrelevancies.