Libertarian Clobbers Tucker Carlson in Immigration Debate

[TommyJeff]

Ty for sharing!!

 

[Superfluous Man]

Has Tucker always been anti-immigration?

I wouldn't have thought so. But I can't really remember. I think he might be expected to take that position for this show, and he may have even deliberately let himself get clobbered, given that this was a Cato guy and not a leftist.

ETA: Guess my gut was wrong. I just checked his wikipedia article and there's an old quote from him that's not just being in character for a political talk show where wanting to slow immigration significantly is one of the things he said he was for.

 

[Superfluous Man]

You can't compete with people who s**t in their drinking water.

Maybe you can't. But I figure I'd be able to hold my own against them.

 

[Dr.No.]

WTF?! I mean, the guy is a friggin' peer-reviewed study nerd! He threw out source after source! He needs to take some communications courses, but damn!

This segment reminded me of the old Thomas Sowell interviews where he'd cite study after study proving his points and the interviewers are like, "uh, well, you're wrong because I feelz..."

Sowell

Sowell isn't really a good example considering his penchant to reference bomb. When you actually go and look at the reference, you'd learn he either made it up or misconstrued its conclusions.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry, but the CATO dude died on the vine at 8:12.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Glad to know that Lew Rockwell finally spoke up about this issue.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

 

[Iowa]

Why is the host debating his guest?

Host was a whiny dork who never did his homework. Had some fallacies too. He called the guest "you libertarians" twice. He whined "That's just not true!" two or three times without followup.

 

[otherone]

Why is the host debating his guest?

Host was a whiny dork who never did his homework. Had some fallacies too. He called the guest "you libertarians" twice. He whined "That's just not true!" two or three times without followup.

Sounds like RPF.

 

[fisharmor]

Sounds like RPF.

No kidding.
I'm one of at least four people who have spent years trying to get anti-immigrant types to make some sense out of their position, and all we ever get is eyerolls.

 

[LibertyEagle]

No kidding.
I'm one of at least four people who have spent years trying to get anti-immigrant types to make some sense out of their position, and all we ever get is eyerolls.

Immigrants <> Illegal aliens

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Also, illegal immigrants bring in over $12 billion into the country in paying state and local excise taxes as well as corporate payroll taxes. http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ow-much-do-undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/

And Carlson wants to avoid this fact. The state spends thousands of dollars per kid. How much do you think people pay in sales taxes once you start adding it up over the years? Lots more than the state spends on education.

Carlson wants to do everything he can to ignore reality as it really is because it really doesn't match up with his politics.

The 2013 FAIR study concludes the NET impact of illegal immigration is a negative expense of $113 billion, even with tax considerations included:

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

 

[undergroundrr]

The 2013 FAIR study concludes the NET impact of illegal immigration is a negative expense of $113 billion, even with tax considerations included:


http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

Looks objective.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Looks objective.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again."

 

[loveshiscountry]

The 2013 FAIR study concludes the NET impact of illegal immigration is a negative expense of $113 billion, even with tax considerations included:
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.


http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

Bolded for emphasis. I think this is missed too often in discussions. A two pronged effect. Instead of contributing more, the under employed and unemployed, affected by illegal immigration, are taking away more.

 

[TheCount]

The 2013 FAIR study concludes the NET impact of illegal immigration is a negative expense of $113 billion, even with tax considerations included:
http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

This just in: Anti-immigrant think tank says immigrants smell, are terrible. More as the story develops.

 

[agitator]

The 2013 FAIR study concludes the NET impact of illegal immigration is a negative expense of $113 billion, even with tax considerations included:


http://www.fairus.org/publications/...llegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

The liberals here will go ape shit over this. NVM, looks like a few already have.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

This just in: Anti-immigrant think tank says immigrants smell, are terrible. More as the story develops.

Or, poster avoids addressing the substance of their research, and conflates illegally domiciled people with ALL immigrants.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Bolded for emphasis. I think this is missed too often in discussions. A two pronged effect. Instead of contributing more, the under employed and unemployed, affected by illegal immigration, are taking away more.

How are any unemployed or underemployed people affected by immigration?

When the people at FAIR say garbage like that it's because they think illegal immigrants take Americans' jobs.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Or, poster avoids addressing the substance of their research, and conflates illegally domiciled people with ALL immigrants.

Why shouldn't those be conflated? What difference does it make if somebody immigrated here illegally? The arguments against their being allowed to be here aren't affected by whether or not the law says their way of coming here was legal.

Also, it's not the poster who conflates those things, but FAIR US who does. TheCount was completely accurate to call them an anti-immigration think tank. If you were implying that they're not anti-immigration but merely want all those people who immigrated here illegally to do so legally instead, you're totally wrong.

 

[PatriotOne]

Why shouldn't those be conflated? What difference does it make if somebody immigrated here illegally?

Apparently the difference is $113 billion plus the cost of unemployed and underemployed U.S. citizens to U.S citizens. Can you not read?