Will Famous Mortimer vote for Trump in 2020?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

WillipsBrighton has always had f[inks]d-up social/cultural views, observable going back years on here: his shift to loving Trump shouldn't surprise anybody.

(Also, perfect time to express my pet peeve about how we call so many posters by their handle rather than their fleeting usernames)

But this is correct, no?

Whoops! Yeah, invert those two.

So, just to get this straight, you would prefer we be referred to as our original usernames, as opposed to our screen names?

Yes, as it's the only constant. Lots of people change their screen names all the time, so identifying people by that metric isn't effective (and I do prefer consistency across all users!).

Agreed. The primary exception I make is smilo.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

(They also can't sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21.)

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

From the Chamber of Commerce:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Famous Mortimer]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

[Famous Mortimer]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

Welfare migrants don't make countries richer.

[OSR stands with Israel]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

Welfare migrants don't make countries richer.

Since you oppose High Income Immigration from India as well you cant make that argument.

[Santander]

Since you oppose High Income Immigration from India as well you cant make that argument.

Because they work in nearsourcing jobs that send profits to India...

[OSR stands with Israel]

Since you oppose High Income Immigration from India as well you cant make that argument.

Because they work in nearsourcing jobs that send profits to India...

Some of them do but not most of them.


IBM, Intel, Nike are not nearsourcing jobs

[PragmaticPopulist]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

Welfare migrants don't make countries richer.

So let me get this straight: You are against any kind of immigration, even rich white people coming from Europe? I have to kind of respect that, since most people against immigration are just against people from South and Central America. At least you're consistent.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Can someone follow this guy around and just repeat the line "IMMIGRANTS WE GET THE JOB DONE" from Hamilton? Surely, that will make him see the light!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The weird thing is he even seems to oppose DOCTORS immigrating. Not only are doctors obviously needed and there's not enough Americans becoming them to fill the need, they obviously don't drain society. They pay high taxes and create jobs too. A doctor from India who opens a clinic and employs a dozen nurses and/or medical assistants is obviously a huge net benefit to creating jobs mostly filled by Americans.

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, a no-immigration-period policy would do just as much damage (if not more) at the upper echelons of the economy and society as it would at the lower rungs. One might even assume that the two separate sets of immigrants even by the most liberal interpretation of the "poorer set draining the country" off-set one another.

Of course, even then you still have the cultural anxiety to gripe about!

[Famous Mortimer]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

Welfare migrants don't make countries richer.

So let me get this straight: You are against any kind of immigration, even rich white people coming from Europe? I have to kind of respect that, since most people against immigration are just against people from South and Central America. At least you're consistent.

I'm against all immigration to be fair and avoid discrimination but obviously immigration from Western Europe is much less harmful than immigration from Central America. Almost all Central American migrants are welfare migrants. Western Europeans are incapable of being welfare migrants, since if they wanted welfare, they wouldn't migrate at all, since their home countries already have more than we do (which is why not many Western Europeans seek to immigrate here compared to Latin Americans).

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

Welfare migrants don't make countries richer.

So let me get this straight: You are against any kind of immigration, even rich white people coming from Europe? I have to kind of respect that, since most people against immigration are just against people from South and Central America. At least you're consistent.

I'm against all immigration to be fair and avoid discrimination but obviously immigration from Western Europe is much less harmful than immigration from Central America. Almost all Central American migrants are welfare migrants. Western Europeans are incapable of being welfare migrants, since if they wanted welfare, they wouldn't migrate at all, since their home countries already have more than we do (which is why not many Western Europeans seek to immigrate here compared to Latin Americans).

Why don't you just admit you prefer only white people immigrate to America? You keep beating around the bush when we all know what you mean.

[Famous Mortimer]

From the article you posted:

"Groups like the innocuously named Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) circulate figures on this subject which seem accurate at first blush but fail to take the full picture into account. For example, CIS counts entire households with an immigrant father and an American mother receiving welfare as immigrant families. They count American-born children receiving subsidized lunches as living in immigrant welfare families. In other words, they skew data to make it look both like more immigrants are receiving welfare than actually are and that they’re receiving more in welfare than they actually are."

So immigrants are a drain, not necessarily because they use welfare themselves (although they often do) but because they have children they can't afford.

Anchor babies, just like Donald Trump said.

And then those babies become adults, find jobs, and become contributing taxpayers themselves.

Unless they get a low paying job (more likely than more established Americans) and have lots of kids (more likely than more established Americans) and then they end up actually getting a credit when they file (in addition to whatever welfare they qualify for as citizens)

and, of course, the more immigration we have, the less social mobility there is, making it even more likely that immigrants will remain in the net tax consumer category.

Educated people disagree with you, but, you know, whatever.  Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bucko.

Welfare migrants don't make countries richer.

So let me get this straight: You are against any kind of immigration, even rich white people coming from Europe? I have to kind of respect that, since most people against immigration are just against people from South and Central America. At least you're consistent.

I'm against all immigration to be fair and avoid discrimination but obviously immigration from Western Europe is much less harmful than immigration from Central America. Almost all Central American migrants are welfare migrants. Western Europeans are incapable of being welfare migrants, since if they wanted welfare, they wouldn't migrate at all, since their home countries already have more than we do (which is why not many Western Europeans seek to immigrate here compared to Latin Americans).

Why don't you just admit you prefer only white people immigrate to America? You keep beating around the bush when we all know what you mean.

What have I said to imply that? I said people coming from countries that offer more welfare than we do, by definition, can't be welfare migrants. That's objectively true. It's unfortunate that most of the countries that offer more welfare than we do are white but that's the way it is. It's not even all though. Japan isn't white and they offer more welfare than we do. Immigrants from Japan would also be pretty benign for the same reason immigrants from Western Europe would. But, again, I favor a complete moratorium on immigrants from anywhere, nothing discriminatory about that.  

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How are doctors and nuclear engineers "welfare migrants" and how does blocking them benefit anyone in the US?

[Famous Mortimer]

How are doctors and nuclear engineers "welfare migrants" and how does blocking them benefit anyone in the US?

I didn't say doctors were welfare migrants. I said the vast majority of people coming from Latin America are welfare migrants. Do you think the vast majority of people coming from Latin America are doctors? I don't imagine you do think that. So stop intentionally misinterpreting my comments.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But you say you want to stop ALL immigration. That would include doctors.

[Famous Mortimer]

But you say you want to stop ALL immigration. That would include doctors.

It would include some doctors. It would include many more welfare migrants. Not getting the welfare migrants would cancel out the cost of having a few less doctors.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No because we don't have enough doctors as is. Also doctors create jobs, and really good ones too.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Famous Mortimer which person do you think should have the ability to immigrate here


Person A:

- Has Only a High School Education
- Income Level Part of Lower Middle Class
- Currently Lives in Europe

Person B:

- Has a Bachelors Degree in Computer Science
- Income Level is Part of the Upper Middle Class
- Currently Lives in Latin America

[Mr. Morden]

WillipsBrighton has always had f[inks]d-up social/cultural views, observable going back years on here: his shift to loving Trump shouldn't surprise anybody.

(Also, perfect time to express my pet peeve about how we call so many posters by their handle rather than their fleeting usernames)

But this is correct, no?

Whoops! Yeah, invert those two.

So, just to get this straight, you would prefer we be referred to as our original usernames, as opposed to our screen names?

Yes, as it's the only constant. Lots of people change their screen names all the time, so identifying people by that metric isn't effective (and I do prefer consistency across all users!).

Agreed. The primary exception I make is smilo.

What about Tender Branson?  Should we be calling him Mark Warner 08?

[AtorBoltox]

Gotta love 'social democrats' who voted for Trump, have attended Proud Boys events, support eugenics and are rape apologists

[Santander]

Gotta love 'social democrats' who voted for Trump, have attended Proud Boys events, support eugenics and are rape apologists

Thank you.