Only had to cite one to disprove the assertion, I did that. I'm sorry Hack posted a study you agreed with, but ultimately is not very credible or constructive. Please do not ask me to cite stuff, if you cant defend the study.
Then why bother mentioning that you "could" cite a dozen more resources if you aren't willing to do so? You're the one trying to disprove the study. If you claim to have dozens of sources to disprove the study, why not just link them all at once and disprove the study beyond doubt ending this silly diversion?
If someone said the earth was flat, I could cite dozens of sources indicating the earth is round, but only one is necessary. It's pointless to list every single one, especially when you can find them within 10 seconds on Google. I find it terrible you think I'm the one who has to prove something. I'm not the one making assertions using a bull***** study. If you are not convinced it's trash by now, 10 more studies telling you the same thing wont change your mind.
Only had to cite one to disprove the assertion, I did that. I'm sorry Hack posted a study you agreed with, but ultimately is not very credible or constructive. Please do not ask me to cite stuff, if you cant defend the study.
The quote does not assert that there wasn't negative impact only that the positive outweighs the negative. Your statements are broad. Look at your quoted section again. It is specific.
As to Googling, I have no interest in attempting to prove you correct. It is your job to provide proof. For now I will assume that you cannot prove your statement and therefore the statement from the published document stands.
Funny. I have to refute the study. I think the person who presented should have to defend it. BTW: I do not need to be proven correct, I know I am. You just need to spend 10 second on Google and you will find how absurd that statement is.
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Cheap-Labor
Um, that's the exact definition of science. Sort through data from various sources, and present the best supported conclusion.
She picked specific sources. She obviously did not sort through data.
It's not obvious to me. Please explain.
You seriously want me to cite the voluminous amount of data that she did not reference or cite or acknowledge? The only reason that "study" was linked, was to support a narrative someone was pushing. It has no value. Seriously, read it, do not just blindly agree with it, then subsequently defend it. Again, I'm fairly liberal when it comes to immigration, that piece is worthless for constructive discussion.
EDIT:
In the first paragraph:
Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy. The widespread belief is that “illegal aliens” cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false. Every empirical study of illegals’ economic impact demonstrates the opposite.
That is demonstrably incorrect. She ignored the voluminous amount of empirical evidence that shows the opposite. I mean, if she provided any sort of indication she studied that data, maybe it would have some value, but no where in her regurgitation of cherry picked facts does she even cite, acknowledge or address that data.
It is interesting that you used the very word - "voluminous" - that the footnote contained. Also, while you didn't show it, the author was quoting that line from a prior source. I have yet to come across anything that supports your assertion which is logically the reverse of the authors: illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. Below is the Cato Institutes take. As a conservative award winning think tank the fact that they support the author's view is reason to ask you for some "voluminous" sources. Say five peer reviewed ones? Cato Institute article; see Myth 4: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cutting-immigration-myths-down-size
All you have to do if find one reputable data set to demonstrate the opposite and her contention is proven false. Google.com. There are many, upon many, upon many sets of data that shows the negative ecnomic impact due to immigration. Make sure you look for information pre 2006. It's not that I necessarily agree that illegal immigration has an impact, it's that she did not even consider the data that contradicts her first assertion.
The only reason that article is ever cited is becasue people agree with the statement, not because its an objective, empirical study on immigration. At least be honest. No economist would ever make the assertion she made. The truth is, we do not know the extent of impact.
I get the feeling that you only looked at the abstract and also that you don't read many studies if you don't feel that one is a study.
I'm almost certain you did not read it. The entire piece is nothing but assertions and references to other peoples work and claims.
Um, that's the exact definition of science. Sort through data from various sources, and present the best supported conclusion.
She picked specific sources. She obviously did not sort through data.
It's not obvious to me. Please explain.
You seriously want me to cite the voluminous amount of data that she did not reference or cite or acknowledge? The only reason that "study" was linked, was to support a narrative someone was pushing. It has no value. Seriously, read it, do not just blindly agree with it, then subsequently defend it. Again, I'm fairly liberal when it comes to immigration, that piece is worthless for constructive discussion.
EDIT:
In the first paragraph:
Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy. The widespread belief is that “illegal aliens” cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false. Every empirical study of illegals’ economic impact demonstrates the opposite.
That is demonstrably incorrect. She ignored the voluminous amount of empirical evidence that shows the opposite. I mean, if she provided any sort of indication she studied that data, maybe it would have some value, but no where in her regurgitation of cherry picked facts does she even cite, acknowledge or address that data. Not to mention she spends most of the time talking about taxes, rather than the impact of immigration.
Evidently to you, the Equal Protection of race, religion and national origin is the “imposition of morality”.
Since you want to make up what my argument is concerning "equal protection", I'll let you go ahead and argue against it.
I'm holding you to what you said. You think people not wanting to be discriminated against on the basis of religion (Muslims being banned from entry) is "imposing a moral imperative".
Morality is not simply a value judgement. Morality is a value judgement based on righteousness. You seem to want to forget that right and wrong is a key component of morality. Deciding whether to go right or left is not a moral decision. Humans make decisions using value judgments. Those could be based on morality, satisfaction, survival, fear, happiness, et al.
This point of yours is just getting repeated. As already discussed, no, morality does not necessarily have anything to do with "righteousness", whatever that means. That's how you're choosing to define it, not what it means to everyone else.
And even for you to be defining it that way is a contradiction, given how it originally arose in the discussion. Those against Trump's proposals said that they were immoral because they went against the morality of the US nation, as codified in the Constitution and other Civil Rights laws. Not this idea of "righteousness" that you're ascribing to morality. So you are basically telling everyone to stop peddling this "righteousness" to you, when they've done no such thing, and instead are just basing their objections on what the laws of the US currently say.
So beyond this being an obscure circular argument for you, it also doesn't go anywhere. I hope it wasn't as much of a waste of time for others to have been reading this line of discussion as it evidently was for you.
Look up the word amoral. I'm going to consider this discussion done. You obviously believe decisions cant be amoral. Trust me when I say this, you are the one having the issues with not understanding words or concepts. The problem is on your end, not mine. It so far from reality that you would consider morality anything different than a distinction between right and wrong.
Apparently aggregate studies are trumped by single source studies. Who knew.
I can not believe anyone actually read that study and came away thinking anything other than the author was asserting a premise while cherry picking facts to support it, and I have a fairly liberal viewpoint on immigration. I would not classify it as a "study" either.
I get the feeling that you only looked at the abstract and also that you don't read many studies if you don't feel that one is a study.
I'm almost certain you did not read it. The entire piece is nothing but assertions and references to other peoples work and claims.
1
1
If someone said the earth was flat, I could cite dozens of sources indicating the earth is round, but only one is necessary. It's pointless to list every single one, especially when you can find them within 10 seconds on Google. I find it terrible you think I'm the one who has to prove something. I'm not the one making assertions using a bull***** study. If you are not convinced it's trash by now, 10 more studies telling you the same thing wont change your mind.
1
Only had to cite one to disprove the assertion, I did that. I'm sorry Hack posted a study you agreed with, but ultimately is not very credible or constructive. Please do not ask me to cite stuff, if you cant defend the study.
1
Funny. I have to refute the study. I think the person who presented should have to defend it. BTW: I do not need to be proven correct, I know I am. You just need to spend 10 second on Google and you will find how absurd that statement is.
Now, dismiss the "study" as trash.
1
All you have to do if find one reputable data set to demonstrate the opposite and her contention is proven false. Google.com. There are many, upon many, upon many sets of data that shows the negative ecnomic impact due to immigration. Make sure you look for information pre 2006. It's not that I necessarily agree that illegal immigration has an impact, it's that she did not even consider the data that contradicts her first assertion.
The only reason that article is ever cited is becasue people agree with the statement, not because its an objective, empirical study on immigration. At least be honest. No economist would ever make the assertion she made. The truth is, we do not know the extent of impact.
1
You seriously want me to cite the voluminous amount of data that she did not reference or cite or acknowledge? The only reason that "study" was linked, was to support a narrative someone was pushing. It has no value. Seriously, read it, do not just blindly agree with it, then subsequently defend it. Again, I'm fairly liberal when it comes to immigration, that piece is worthless for constructive discussion.
EDIT:
In the first paragraph:
That is demonstrably incorrect. She ignored the voluminous amount of empirical evidence that shows the opposite. I mean, if she provided any sort of indication she studied that data, maybe it would have some value, but no where in her regurgitation of cherry picked facts does she even cite, acknowledge or address that data. Not to mention she spends most of the time talking about taxes, rather than the impact of immigration.
1
Cite.
1
Since you want to make up what my argument is concerning "equal protection", I'll let you go ahead and argue against it.
1
Look up the word amoral. I'm going to consider this discussion done. You obviously believe decisions cant be amoral. Trust me when I say this, you are the one having the issues with not understanding words or concepts. The problem is on your end, not mine. It so far from reality that you would consider morality anything different than a distinction between right and wrong.
1
I'm almost certain you did not read it. The entire piece is nothing but assertions and references to other peoples work and claims.