I’m sure all corners of the galaxy and our ships at sea have heard about this one by now.

I’m once again left to wonder if Donald Trump is among our readers.

That’s not to say I completely agree with Trump’s response on policy grounds, except for the end of whatever this “lottery” immigration from Third World shitholes is, as well as chain immigration.  That’s all great.

I don’t disagree with Trump’s sentiment at all, as the excerpt shows.  But it’s a diplomatic gaffe when it goes public that he said it.  Trump needs to apologize to the shitholes he offended.  Maybe he could throw another billion dollars in aid at them.

The funny thing is that whoever leaked this accidentally did Trump a favor.  His base was convinced that he was about to sell them out on the Dreamers in a bad deal with the Senate.  The question he reportedly asked, “Why are we so obsessed with bringing in people from shitholes?” is the primary one they’re obsessed with and they love that he asked it out loud.

I find no fault.

Light posting on my part this week on account of illness (just so you know that I am being karmacally punished for my wickedness).  Seems to be the same flu/cold/whatever that’s been laying waste all over the country.  Since I barely leave the house on a normal day, I don’t have the luxury of blaming people from Third World shitholes.

53 comments

  1. I dunno…maybe Trump just got so full of sh*t some of it started coming out of his mouth?

    But yes these are crappy countries run by crappy governments for the most part. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the people themselves are crappy, however. Many of them are more hard-working than a lot of crappy Americans, and they have to live in crappy neighborhoods when they come here.

    Eh, there’s enough manure here for everyone. And everyone knows the media re full of sh*t anyway.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYPziRyCTuw

  2. Definitely not the most tactful thing to do, but at this point, do we really expect tact from this President?

    It’s kinda like…everyone knows the countries in question are in fact shitholes, just don’t call them shitholes in public or you might offend someone. An extension of the snowflake reasoning. Someone not calling a spade a spade is better because…reasons.

  3. Shithole President.
    I love how people went batshit about Obama offending the world over banal mindless trivial shit,……and then you turn right around and deliver us all THIS guy. And THEN you defend him. It sure is endlessly entertaining. I guess the alternative is deep shame and embarrassment, but that’s for girls and liberals! 😉

  4. When you or I say “shithole” nothing of note happens. Trump saying shithole is on another level entirely.

    But yes these are crappy countries run by crappy governments for the most part. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the people themselves are crappy, however.

    Bingo.

  5. And THEN you defend him.

    It’s not a matter of defending him. I agree with him. Why do we bring in waves of unskilled people who don’t speak our language from poor countries?

    When you or I say “shithole” nothing of note happens. Trump saying shithole is on another level entirely.

    This is not something that he tweeted or said during a press conference. It was at a closed door meeting. I still think he should apologize for diplomatic reasons as I said since it’s leaked out, but it doesn’t look like he’s going to.

  6. I know this has CM almost as giddy as a school shooting to exploit, but there is nothing wrong with merit based immigration among other things to secure our republic.

    The fact that he said it behind closed doors where it was then immediately leaked tells me the “other” side isn’t negotiating in good faith – hell, I don’t think they even really care about these people (and I agree that even though their governments suck, the vast, vast majority are trying for a better life which is what I’d be doing as well). They use these words not to help those that need assistance, but to damage OG (orange glow) in any way possible.

    Ultimately, the US has the right to set standards that most other countries follow – I’m not sure why we are the main country to take anyone, anywhere at any time, when nearly every other country, including Aus, Canada and others, have merit based immigration policies that protect their citizens first.

    But, instead of discussing that, let’s all rage about this “shithole” president.

  7. I know this has CM almost as giddy as a school shooting to exploit, but there is nothing wrong with merit based immigration among other things to secure our republic.

    And that’s the bottom line. I’d be happy to see us take in 100,000 medical doctors from every shithole on Earth. But that’s not what was being decided. We’re just bringing in people from poverty-stricken countries because we don’t have enough of them already.

    If a policy doesn’t tangibly serve our national interests, then we should stop doing it.

  8. Jake Tapper on Trump’s clarification tweet:

    https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/951814037960085504

    The American press is killing itself by running wild with inaccuracies. I don’t care if Trump said what they say he said or not, mind you, but it’s stupid to rush out these claims and then have to retract them. It strengthens Trump’s characterization of them as Fake News.

    Rush says that this is the end of any DACA deal. Long clip, but good.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cznOG2t2WWw

  9. A school shooting to exploit? Wtf?
    Newsflash: just because someone is from a poor country it doesn’t mean they’re a shit person. Yes, they are not likely to be as white as someone from, I dunno, I’ll randomly pick Norway.
    That he’s now trying to deny it even though there are multiple witnesses just reinforces what a lying scumbag the guy is.
    Dress up defending as ‘agreeing’ as much as you like. It is what it is. You’re totally on board with this guy because he’s, somehow, a means to an end.

  10. That he’s now trying to deny it even though there are multiple witnesses just reinforces what a lying scumbag the guy is.

    As I linked in the previous comment, even Jake Tapper has partially retracted it. And two of the Senators who were there say Trump didn’t say “shitholes”. I don’t care, but I wish the media would quit pretending that it doesn’t exist for any other purpose than to be Trump’s Opposition and that just because he lies that they can too.

    https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/951878844289609730

    Newsflash: just because someone is from a poor country it doesn’t mean they’re a shit person. Yes, they are not likely to be as white as someone from, I dunno, I’ll randomly pick Norway.

    You’re the one conflating “majority black” with “shithole”, not me.

    Dress up defending as ‘agreeing’ as much as you like.

    Me in November: “Hey, we should quit letting people in from shithole countries on this diversity lottery program thing.”

    Trump yesterday: “We should quit letting people in from shithole countries on the diversity lottery program.”

    Me yesterday: “Wow, Trump said something I said two months ago, but I think he should apologize to the countries he called shitholes.

    CM today: “YOU’RE JUST DEFENDING TRUMP!”

    You’re totally on board with this guy because he’s, somehow, a means to an end.

    I’m totally on board with restricting immigration to people who have valuable skills, won’t need public assistance for years after immigrating, and will assimilate into our culture and learn the language. As long as Trump is doing that, I’m good.

  11. The POTUS calling countries shitholes is news, righties would be having absolute shit fits if Obama had said anything remotely similar. But this is the new ‘normal’, I get it, he’s your guy, so it’s disingenuous all the way. To claim that daring to report it makes them some kind of political opposition is the same banana republic bullshit Trump propagates, so you’re really just a useful idiot on that regard.
    You’re the one avoiding the issue – just because someone is from a poor country it doesn’t mean they’re a shit person. In fact often when a person comes from a country with less opportunity, they work harder in the new country. Where is your evidence that all the people from those shithole countries don’t meet your criteria. Becuase he’s not being selective here, he’s applying his comments to entire populations. Again, you’re just spreading Trump’s manure for him. Why do you keep doing this?

  12. The POTUS calling countries shitholes is news, righties would be having absolute shit fits if Obama had said anything remotely similar.

    Obama usually reserved his criticisms for Americans, not foreigners. Sort of like how Hillary called half the country “deplorables”. But I assure you that I didn’t have a shit fit when Obama called Kanye West a “jackass”. I even praised his candor and accuracy.

    To claim that daring to report it makes them some kind of political opposition is the same banana republic bullshit Trump propagates, so you’re really just a useful idiot on that regard.

    Reporting things is exactly what the press should do. That is, after they ensure that what they’re reporting is accurate. We’ve already seen one major retraction and it wouldn’t surprise me if more follow. The problem is this “ends justify the means” style of journalism that leads reporters to throw all sense of objectivity out with the garbage when it comes to talking about Trump.

    If they want to spend 90% of their time running stories critical of Trump and ignore any good news (and they do), that’s fine, but the stories that the mainstream media has had to walk back because they were inaccurate or overblown from even the past six months is almost too numerous to list.

    You’re the one avoiding the issue – just because someone is from a poor country it doesn’t mean they’re a shit person.

    Nobody is making that argument. I don’t think that’s true either anyway. I also don’t think it’s true that just because someone is from a poor country, he should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. That’s exactly what the Democrats were trying to get Trump to agree on.

    In fact often when a person comes from a country with less opportunity, they work harder in the new country.

    Explain this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

    Becuase he’s not being selective here, he’s applying his comments to entire populations.

    You don’t know that. You don’t know what was said and neither do I. The argument is whether or not the US is obligated to take in tens of thousands of immigrants from poor countries. I say we’re not and it doesn’t have anything to do with the shittiness of the people from those countries.

    Again, you’re just spreading Trump’s manure for him.

    Uh, Trump is propagating my manure. Get it right!

    Why do you keep doing this?

    Doing what? Arguing that the United States shouldn’t become a Third World dumping ground and expressing satisfaction when the politician I voted for to prevent that follows through?

  13. Newsflash: just because someone is from a poor country it doesn’t mean they’re a shit person.

    Newsflash: Just because someone calls a country a shithole, doesn’t mean he thinks everyone in that country is a “shit person”. But then, you would know that if your TDS wasn’t at epidemic levels.

  14. To be eligible for the green card lottery you need at least a high school education or 2 years of work experience in something that needs at least two years of training. Fun Fact – my boss just won the green card lottery a couple of weeks ago.

    Just because someone calls a country a shithole, doesn’t mean he thinks everyone in that country is a “shit person”

    Cool. I’m keen to hear the non racist reason that Trump would rather accept people from Norway than from Haiti or Africa. I dunno, maybe it’s because he thinks that Norweigians have had a better head start due to their universal socialised health and education systems?

  15. The most hilarious part of trump pondering out loud about why we don’t get immigrants from Norway instead of shithole countries is the reason why. We don’t get anyone from those countries because they’re very well educated (for free, or almost free), believe in their social democracies, aren’t opposed to paying taxes for a better nation, and the kicker….. Because of these policies they have generally better, more prosperous and healthy nations due to their social stances.

    Unless you are a Muslim refugee in Norway, or really, even if you were, why in the fuck would you want to be here?

    America generally draws in more shithole people, from shithole nations, because we promote being shitty, callous, and sociopathic toward our fellow countrymen. We will continue to get these types of immigrants until we join the rest of the educated western world with our policies, which will be when the millenials finally vote out this plague of ridiculous “conservative” conmen.

    I think the reason for us not getting the immigrants we want is more a reflection inward of where we are politically. In addition, we’ll probably see less of the elite here because China has a very aggressive and inclusive immigrant policy that is taking more of the elite.

    America, especially under trump, is creating a royalty class of the wealthy, stupid and useless of the nation. Something our founders railed against, but here it is.

  16. Amazing how people can take hearsay and run with it – so be it. Thrill, I’d love to back you up here, but I’d just be saying the same things you are. Well, I’ll just say a couple things…

    We have every right to have a more restrictive immigration stance – the same as other “better and more progressive countries” such as some I listed above.

    And, even if he did say shithole countries – the way those governments work is shitty toward their people. It just is – doesn’t make the poor folks there bad or shitty people (I personally donate to many causes in those specific areas as those folks need help). He didn’t say that. He said their countries were – meaning the terrible and often horrific governments.

    Let’s just copy say, Mexico’s immigration policy, or say Australia – would everyone here agree to that – as they are more restrictive than we are – and often the punishments are much, much more harsh for being there illegally.

    But nah – we get the blowback from folks in NZ who don’t have any issues of a large nation that is expected to take anyone and everyone, be the world police (only in areas that they approve of), want us to fund the UN at 30% but only have the same vote weight as any other nation etc.

    And Judge, I guess I am just not smart enough to decipher your rants. Good luck with the blood pressure.

    CM – damn right I said school shooting. NEWSFLASH – he didn’t say they were shitty people. He said their countries were. Want to move to Haiti? That way you could trade in your ocean view for an open sewage stream right out your front door? No?

  17. Wow, if only there was an Olympics for being disingenuous. You guys would be fighting out the medals for sure.

  18. C’mon cress, I’m sure the Norway comparison was just another coincidence. Trump has an impressive lifelong track record of coincidences when it comes to race. Bitherism wasn’t about race, it was just a coincidence that Obama was black. You wouldn’t believe what they would have otherwise found in Norway.

    Brownbag, when did I get giddy about exploiting school shootings?

  19. Amazing how people can take hearsay and run with it

    That’s just what you’ve done with Tapper’s anonymous source. There were multiple witnesses to it, including Republicans (some have clearly retained at least some degree of self-respect). Trump didn’t deny it for a long time, apparently he spent time gauging the reaction first.
    https://twitter.com/HallieJackson/status/951885952095588352?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E1

    Perhaps Cotton and Perdue just didn’t hear it (doesn’t counter those who did hear it), or alternatively perhaps they should seek help for suffering such a devastating memory-related malady in service of the King.

  20. To be eligible for the green card lottery you need at least a high school education or 2 years of work experience in something that needs at least two years of training.

    Which is how we ended up with the Manhattan ISIS attacker. Because we need more Uber drivers, or something.

    I’m keen to hear the non racist reason that Trump would rather accept people from Norway than from Haiti or Africa.

    There are plenty of non-racist reasons, but anyone who is already convinced Trump is a racist wouldn’t heed them. My guess is that he picked Norway because he had just met with the Norweigan Prime Minister and that country was right on the top of his head.

    But yes, your point about Norway’s strong education system is a good non-racist reason. I could also point to their strong cultural tradition of political freedom, low corruption, low propensity for crime and radicalism, and high proportion of English speaking people among th population that improves the likelihood of easy assimilation.

  21. I haven’t done anything with anyone’s sources CM. I can neither confirm or deny what he said. Pretty straightforward answer. I can use the fact that many things about The Great Orange One have been completely wrong and politically charged so there is a track record to use to support not believing the reports.

    He is also an ass that speaks out of the same orifice, so, maybe he said it as he has a track record of being blunt at the least.

    But, no idea as I really can’t believe either side. I want to go to THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION POLICY WHICH IS IS BEING IGNORED DUE TO THIS SUPPOSED STATEMENT – and to me, that was the purpose to leak this alleged quote.

    Most Americans, like most citizens of their home country, want immigrants to assimilate, prosper and add to their countries. To do so, there must be a skill that is needed, language that has been learned etc. Why are asking for these things so…bad…for the US to ask when it is pretty standard around the world? Don’t we usually wish the US could “catch up to the rest of the world?” No? Not for immigration. We must have open boarders with no merit based immigration policy at all.

    Weird.

  22. Thrill you rail against the media for bias but you put up the Center for Immigration Studies as some sort of reputable source?

    I used a USA Today (which is mainstream media) article about the CIS study. I think it provides a balanced perspective on the issue.

    Morever, the CIS study was based on US Census data, not known for any inherent bias.

    Have a good read of this section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies#Controversial_reports

    Hilariously, your Wikipedia article does not list the CIS report cited in the linked USA Today article among the controversial reports. So….it’s not in dispute?

    Amazing how people can take hearsay and run with it

    This entire “shithole controversy” is based on hearsay.

    That’s just what you’ve done with Tapper’s anonymous source.

    This entire “shithole controversy” is based on hearsay from anonymous sources.

    Trump didn’t deny it for a long time, apparently he spent time gauging the reaction first.

    According to hearsay from anonymous sources.

    Perhaps Cotton and Perdue just didn’t hear it (doesn’t counter those who did hear it), or alternatively perhaps they should seek help for suffering such a devastating memory-related malady in service of the King.

    Or maybe he didn’t say it and these named, direct witnesses are more reliable than any hearsay from anonymous sources.

  23. A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

    https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history

    Just one example.

    but anyone who is already convinced Trump is a racist

    Given the substantial body of evidence, you’d need to be seriously in denial to not be convinced by now.

  24. What’s so hard to decipher, Brown bag? We don’t get immigrants from the countries like the one trump cited as the gold standard precisely because of people like trump and his politics. A country like Norway treats her citizens better than America treats hers. End of story.

    If America were more politically similar to Australia, New Zealand or even Norway it might be a draw, but America is a losing proposition for anyone but the extremely wealthy.

    My blood pressure is 111/74 and my resting pulse is 78, thanks for asking. How’s yours?

    You should read a book called “the millionaire next door”.

  25. I haven’t done anything with anyone’s sources CM.

    You sure did. You’re referring to multiple first-person accounts as ‘hearsay’.

    I can use the fact that many things about The Great Orange One have been completely wrong and politically charged so there is a track record to use to support not believing the reports.

    Sure, and I could point to one thing mis-reported to argue that everything negatively reported about Obama is probably wrong. But that would make me a loon.

    He is also an ass that speaks out of the same orifice, so, maybe he said it as he has a track record of being blunt at the least.

    We are fortunate that he constantly reveals who he is. The fact that people like you are critical of the reveal rather than everything else that flows from who is, well, it’s instructive.

    THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION POLICY WHICH IS IS BEING IGNORED DUE TO THIS SUPPOSED STATEMENT – and to me, that was the purpose to leak this alleged quote.

    Why do you call it a ‘leak’?
    But this is who he is. It’s exactly as advertised. There is not going to be policy discussion because he’ll keep doing this. He said something deeply derogatory about poor countries populated by people who are not white. Why would you ever expect anything different? FFS. This is who Trump is: He elevated his political profile by claiming President Barack Obama wasn’t born in America, he announced his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers, and he has continued to disparage nonwhite people since entering the White House. Pretty straightforward.
    If you don’t want this kind of shit to happen then don’t vote for such a horrific human being as your leader. Really though, that should go without saying. Which is what’s weird.

    Still be good to get an understanding about where I got giddy about exploiting school shootings.

  26. Just one example.

    The Playboy article doesn’t speak to that allegation. Here’s Trump’s entire response to it:

    “Nobody has had worse things written about them than me,” Trump says. “And here I am. The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true. The guy’s a fucking loser. A fucking loser. I brought the guy in to work for me; it turns out he didn’t know that much about what he was doing. I think I met the guy two or three times total. And this guy goes off and writes a book about me, like he knows me! I understand it. He needs the money, so he uses my name to sell some books. But it must have been a lousy book because it didn’t sell any copies.”

    He’s hardly giving the author any credibility there. And then in 1999, Trump firmly denied O’Donnell’s allegations. 17:15

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_joQ1kxxZs

    I have to say that if Trump being racist had any effect on the historic low unemployment for black Americans during his first year in office, maybe he should be even more racist.

  27. I used a USA Today (which is mainstream media) article about the CIS study.

    Ah I see, my mistake, I clearly wasn’t meant to look any further. Especially into the fact that they’ve been misleading about this and other related ‘research’ for years. LOL.

    I think it provides a balanced perspective on the issue.

    I don’t see how – if it’s flawed (because it’s been put together by an extremely biased group with a clear agenda and history of misusing data to get the result they want).

    Morever, the CIS study was based on US Census data, not known for any inherent bias.

    C’mon, don’t play dumb. You know full well it’s how the data is used, re-worked, extrapolated, and presented.

    Hilariously, your Wikipedia article does not list the CIS report cited in the linked USA Today article among the controversial reports. So….it’s not in dispute?

    You’re right, it’s hilarious that you think that’s even remotely a good point. But hey, if that’s where we’re at, there’s nothing wrong with CNN, only the stories they got wrong.

    This entire “shithole controversy” is based on hearsay.

    Multiple witnesses, some of them Republican.

    According to hearsay from anonymous sources.

    Again, first person accounts aren’t hearsay.
    You seem to be relying on Tapper’s anonymous source (second hand account) for your unsurprising stance. Where is your consistency?

    Or maybe he didn’t say it and these named, direct witnesses are more reliable than any hearsay from anonymous sources.

    LOL. There are named people who heard it, and your ‘direct witnesses’ simply claimed not to hear, not that he didn’t say it.

  28. I have to say that if Trump being racist had any effect on the historic low unemployment for black Americans during his first year in office, maybe he should be even more racist.

    Gold medal.

  29. I don’t see how – if it’s flawed (because it’s been put together by an extremely biased group with a clear agenda and history of misusing data to get the result they want).

    Are we still doing this? I guess you didn’t note that the article took the time to quote someone who disagreed with the CIS study’s findings. As I said, THE LINK I USED is balanced and a librul media source. You can take or leave the CIS study, but you’re not offering much to show that the US doesn’t have a large immigrant population that is reliant on various welfare programs.

    Multiple witnesses, some of them Republican.

    Who is a Republican firsthand witness to the shithole comment? Cotton and Purdue are firsthand witnesses and they say they didn’t hear it. Tim Scott says he heard from Lindsay Graham that Trump said it, but that’s hearsay because Scott wasn’t there.

    Again, first person accounts aren’t hearsay.

    You’re right. Of the people in the meeting, three firsthand witnesses who we know for sure were in the room (Cotton, Purdue, and Diaz-Balart) deny hearing Trump make the “shithole” remark (plus Trump himself). The one named firsthand witness is Dick Durbin, who is the single most unscrupulous imbecile who ever served in the Senate. That’s 4 against 1.

    Everything else is hearsay from anonymous sources.

    You seem to be relying on Tapper’s anonymous source (second hand account) for your unsurprising stance.

    Tapper’s statement is relevant because he is:

    1. Personally Anti-Trump, and
    2. Employed by a news agency that has been reporting that Trump included Haiti and Latin America in the “shithole countries” list. It means that CNN is retracting its own reporting on the matter.

    For Tapper to be saying it is a retraction of what earlier anonymous witnesses said. I’m not relying on him for anything. I’m correctly observing that a journalist is partially walking back a story his journalistic organization has been reporting.

  30. I guess you didn’t note that the article took the time to quote someone who disagreed with the CIS study’s findings.

    So you answered your own “explain this” question.

  31. So you answered your own “explain this” question.

    Does the US have a significant number of immigrants who are reliant upon public welfare services? I’ve offered up a story on a study that claims it’s about half and that the number is higher than for native born citizens.

    Do you dispute it? If so, with what do you dispute it?

  32. Cotton and Purdue are firsthand witnesses and they say they didn’t hear it. Tim Scott says he heard from Lindsay Graham that Trump said it, but that’s hearsay because Scott wasn’t there.

    Ok then I was mistaken about a first hand account from a Republican. My bad.
    We still have two witnesses (an aide in addition to THE WORST MAN WHO EVER LIVED). We still have no denial until it was deemed necessary to do so, and it was clearly relayed (by their reactions) to a number Republicans in a manner or by a person which made it very clear that there was no doubt about it. Including Flake, who said it was “as related to me directly following the meeting by those in attendance”.
    But yeah sure, the benefit of the doubt should definitely to the guy on record being racist most of his life and a gold medalist in bare-faced lying. Because someone ELSE is an unscrupulous imbecile. Even though Trump calling these countries ‘shitholes’ is 100% consistent with who the guy is.
    Clearly you’ll believe whatever suits, not what is clearly the most likely.

  33. Does the US have a significant number of immigrants who are reliant upon public welfare services? I’ve offered up a story on a study that claims it’s about half and that the number is higher than native born citizens. Do you dispute it. If so, with what do you dispute it?

    HUH? As already explained the basis of your source is clearly strongly biased and has been widely slammed for this sort of ‘research’ before. There are reasons given at my link and your own link as to why. They clearly do what is necessary to get the outcome they want. This would be a good time to step away from it and use something else to support your argument. As noted at your LA Times link, it’s also a narrow measure as it doesn’t account for what happens to the children of those immigrants.

    Linda Chavez agrees with Camarota that the country’s welfare system is too large and too costly. But Chavez, a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan’s administration, said it’s irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country’s welfare system any more than native-born Americans.

    Chavez said today’s immigrants, like all other immigrant waves in the country’s history, start off poorer and have lower levels of education, making it unfair to compare their welfare use to the long-established native-born population. She said immigrants have larger households, making it more likely that one person in that household will receive some kind of welfare benefit. And she said many benefits counted in the study are going to U.S.-born children of immigrants, skewing the findings even more.

    “When you take all of those issues into account, (the report) is less worrisome,” she said.

    Chavez, president of the Becoming American Institute, a conservative group that advocates for higher levels of legal immigration to reduce illegal immigration, said politicians should be careful about using the data. Rather than focus on the fact that immigrants are initially more dependent on welfare than the U.S.-born, she said they should focus on studies that show what happens to the children of those immigrants.

  34. But as researchers at the libertarian Cato Institute point out, the main reason for the difference is that immigrant households tend to be larger than American households, and are therefore more likely to have children, including American-born children who are eligible for some benefits.

    To get a more accurate picture of welfare use, researchers need to compare individuals, not households. Using the same data, Cato researchers controlled for education levels, family size and income to see whether immigrants were more likely to use welfare benefits than non-immigrants in similar scenarios.

    Their results were more nuanced. Overall, poor immigrant households use less welfare than poor American households.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/4/16094684/trump-immigrants-welfare

  35. It’s amazing that you can seriously follow this statement:

    Ok then I was mistaken about a first hand account from a Republican. My bad.

    …with this one:

    Clearly you’ll believe whatever suits, not what is clearly the most likely.

    The facts are lining up on my side, not yours, bud.

  36. HUH? As already explained the basis of your source is clearly strongly biased and has been widely slammed for this sort of ‘research’ before.

    /posts this and subsequently links to Vox.

    Nah, I won’t give you a hard time for your source choice. Instead, I’ll congratulate you for finally putting up something that supports your arguments (whatever they are).

    Let’s focus on the basis for Vox’s data in that article though. The Cato Institute.

    But as researchers at the libertarian Cato Institute point out, the main reason for the difference is that immigrant households tend to be larger than American households, and are therefore more likely to have children, including American-born children who are eligible for some benefits.

    To get a more accurate picture of welfare use, researchers need to compare individuals, not households. Using the same data, Cato researchers controlled for education levels, family size and income to see whether immigrants were more likely to use welfare benefits than non-immigrants in similar scenarios.

    Their results were more nuanced. Overall, poor immigrant households use less welfare than poor American households.

    Here’s CIS’s rebuttal:

    https://cis.org/Camarota/Cato-Institute-Misses-Point-Immigrant-Welfare-Use-Again

    So what do open-borders enthusiasts do when confronted with such indisputable data? They change the subject. That’s what the Cato Institute’s Alex Nowrasteh did in his response to our study. While we compare the welfare use of immigrants and natives, he spends several paragraphs on what he calls “the interesting question”, which is how poor immigrants compare to poor natives in terms of welfare use. He gives no reason why this is a more interesting question. It actually obscures the comparison considerably, since poverty is a major driver of welfare use and immigrants are more likely to live in poverty.

    As we make clear in our report, the main reason that immigrants use more welfare than natives is simply that immigrants tend to be less educated and subsequently poorer than natives. Welfare use is not a moral failing on the part of low-skilled immigrants any more than it is for low-skilled natives. Our point is that as long as we continue to take in so many low-skilled immigrants (legal or illegal), immigrant welfare use will remain high. To “correct for” education and income differences is to deliberately obscure that point.

    This is exactly correct. We’re importing poverty for no good reason. We should not ever be encouraging immigration by anybody who can not support themselves or their families (and even Cato acknowledges that immigrants have larger families, thus further burdening the system).

    If immigrants want to move to the US and contribute positively to our economy, great. But if they’re unable to support themselves because they come from a shithole country that provided them with no education or job skills, it’s not our obligation to take them.

  37. He complains about CIS, but posts a link from Vox to prove Trump has a track record of racism. Oh the irony…

    If America were more politically similar to Australia, New Zealand or even Norway it might be a draw, but America is a losing proposition for anyone but the extremely wealthy.

    Anyone? In the last three years my income has more than tripled, and I am by no means “extremely wealthy”. And it’s not just me who America is a winning proposition for. The median income is the highest ever, and the poverty level has dropped to 2007 levels before the repression, and those numbers are prior to the economic boom last year. But hey, the rich got richer so…bad, or something.

  38. CMNZ – Clearly you do exactly what you condemn others for doing. It’d be great if you were more self aware.

    Judge – your BP is great but that resting heart rate seems high. Perhaps more cardio? My BP is 120/76 on average. Resting heart rate is 62. I take these 3 times per day. Probably weird but I’ve got time. I’ll check out the book.

  39. Zurvan: I will just suspend disbelief for a second that the claim of some anonymous account on the internet “has tripled my salary in X amount of time”, and instead of immediately calling it dubious bullshit will entertain it for the purposes of proving my point.

    By your own disclosures, if taken at your word, you are not the “class” of people I am talking about. Even if you tripled your salary, in a hypothetical number let’s say from a base of 50k a year, you’d be at 150K a year. That is the low end of the most penalized tax bracket in our new tax code. If you tripled it from 200K a year, you are in the middle of the most penalized tax bracket in the tax code.

    You are neither “extremely wealthy” nor are you the “wealth royalty” class I discussed that is being created by this ever increasing need to cut breaks to the wealthy in modern American politics. You would be a “H.E.N.R.Y.” to economists, a “high earner, not rich yet” and are the subject of the full brunt of the tax code’s revised burden.

    So, no offense, but it’s not all about you. for the vast majority of Americans wages are stagnant or lower, jobs are not careers or stable, and most Americans do not have the luxury of indulging in the stock market. Who I am talking about are people well in advance of more than 1 million annually, who are wealthy enough not to work, and have the resources to create the template from the blueprint congress laid down to semi-legally launder their wealth into their pockets at 11 percent.

    THOSE PEOPLE are the winners here. The tax code is SET UP for them. They are an extremely small pool of people. The MAJORITY of Americans will never benefit from this re-imagining of subsidy in any way.

    They will get the 4K payoff for the first two years, and are too naive to know that for the rest of the ride they’ve been burdened with paying for a subsidy that expires for them, and only increases for this elite class.

    So, even in your myopic example of success it’s not what Im talking about in the slightest. On an entirely macro level, America has become an ever increasing losing proposition for any class of people except the extremely wealthy.

  40. I will just suspend disbelief for a second that the claim of some anonymous account on the internet “has tripled my salary in X amount of time”, and instead of immediately calling it dubious bullshit will entertain it for the purposes of proving my point.

    By your own disclosures, if taken at your word, you are not the “class” of people I am talking about.

    First off, I give two shits what you believe or not about me. You’re the idiot that made a claim in a previous post that you were richer than everyone else here. Now you have the idiotic audacity to state the above?

    Secondly, you are the one who claimed everyone but the “extremely wealthy” were having a “losing proposition” in the US. I provided evidence to the contrary, including my own personal experience showing that I am doing quite well, and never once inferring anywhere that I am “extremely wealthy”, and provide proof of how most people are doing via actual statistics. Then you go on a rant about…something apparently only you understand, because it does nothing to address or disprove my point, just more ranting about the rich.

    Damn it, you would think I would learn my lesson than every try to engage you in civil discourse.

  41. Nah, I won’t give you a hard time for your source choice.

    The primary sources are all actually that link. It happens to be Vox. Sure you can go through and give Donald the benefit of the doubt on every single occasion (like you did with that one example) but that just supports my mocking of how many coincidences there are. All these people, all the time, happen to be black.
    Whereas your primary source was CIS, via the LA Times.

    Let’s focus on the basis for Vox’s data in that article though. The Cato Institute.

    Bingo. You didn’t get it….but then also you got it.

    Here’s CIS’s rebuttal:

    The rebuttal seems very weak, which is presumably why they are slammed by such a large number of wide range of experts. If a large immigrant family has an American-born children who are eligible for some benefits, they get included.

    Anyway, regardless, the CIS ‘research’ doesn’t differentiate between shithole countries and non-shithole countries. The point here is the targeting of countries/geographical areas by Trump, not the wealth of the individuals coming to America and the likelihood of them going on some sort of welfare (including whether they have 15 kids and 1 of them uses one form of welfare once in 1 year). So not only is it a seemingly flawed and narrow piece of research to use, it misses the point which is the ongoing inability of Trump to perform as a POTUS. There is frustration at this sidetrack, well, that’s a feature not a bug. But sure, it’s everyone else’s fault. Gotta give the guy a break apparently.

    As to whether Trump said ‘shithole’, you clearly initially believed it. Why?

    CMNZ – Clearly you do exactly what you condemn others for doing. It’d be great if you were more self aware.

    See above.
    Still waiting to find out where I was getting giddy at a school shooting, thanks. I’ll wait.

  42. I don’t go much to rTFTLC anymore so I’m not going to dredge up every link bomb you make with breathless anticipation after every school shooting. I quit responding to you on those situations as it seemed the last was pretty egregious. I can usually overlook it, but something you posted or linked to was very offensive.

    We all know you do it – Thrill highlighted that phrase. It’s not like he was protesting my statement.

    Just own that you’ll use those horrible situations immediately to push an agenda without even letting the shell casings hit the damn ground.

    I’m sure you have reasons, that we’d all probably agree on – fewer shootings, safer schools etc. the issue is you want to remedy that by removing my rights to defend myself and my family. And you try to push my opinion as uncaring or as some he man fetish towards gun. I’d rather do it through better mental health etc. And I’d rather discuss it without exploitation.

  43. The primary sources are all actually that link. It happens to be Vox

    The entire section that you quoted:

    But as researchers at the libertarian Cato Institute point out, the main reason for the difference is that immigrant households tend to be larger than American households, and are therefore more likely to have children, including American-born children who are eligible for some benefits.

    To get a more accurate picture of welfare use, researchers need to compare individuals, not households. Using the same data, Cato researchers controlled for education levels, family size and income to see whether immigrants were more likely to use welfare benefits than non-immigrants in similar scenarios.

    Their results were more nuanced. Overall, poor immigrant households use less welfare than poor American households.

    The stuff you quoted that was on a link from Vox was information that came from Cato. It’s all right there in your own quotes. Cato is the source.

    Whereas your primary source was CIS, via the LA Times.

    It was really USA Today, but please keep trying to get something right today.

    If a large immigrant family has an American-born children who are eligible for some benefits, they get included.

    They absolutely should be included. It’s dishonest to try to hide their data from the true costs of unchecked immigration.

    The point here is the targeting of countries/geographical areas by Trump, not the wealth of the individuals coming to America and the likelihood of them going on some sort of welfare (including whether they have 15 kids and 1 of them uses one form of welfare once in 1 year).

    There is no reason whatsoever to think that Trump wouldn’t allow immigrants to come from shithole countries under a merit-based system. There are certainly people in those places who have vital skills who would not need public assistance upon arriving in the US.

    As to whether Trump said ‘shithole’, you clearly initially believed it. Why?

    I still think he said something similar, even if not that specifically. Refusing to accept large numbers of unskilled immigrants from backward countries has been consistent with his policies.

    Still, I’m enjoying watching the opposition media get beclowned by having to once again their claims fall apart under scrutiny. As I said above in an earlier comment:

    I don’t care if Trump said what they say he said or not, mind you, but it’s stupid to rush out these claims and then have to retract them. It strengthens Trump’s characterization of them as Fake News.

  44. The stuff you quoted that was on a link from Vox was information that came from Cato. It’s all right there in your own quotes. Cato is the source.

    Ah I see. I was referring to the examples of how Trump is very clearly a racist. I linked to a Vox piece but all the examples are sourced.
    Which is why I said:

    The primary sources are all actually that link. It happens to be Vox. Sure you can go through and give Donald the benefit of the doubt on every single occasion (like you did with that one example) but that just supports my mocking of how many coincidences there are. All these people, all the time, happen to be black.

    It makes zero sense for that to be about the Cato criticism.

    They absolutely should be included. It’s dishonest to try to hide their data from the true costs of unchecked immigration.

    It’s dishonest to not compare apples with apples simply on the basis of some broad statement like that. Nothing should be hidden, but everything should be compared properly.
    And of course it’s a very narrow way of considering the issue (obviously for good reason, when you look at it less narrowly, and make honest comparisons, then it’s hard to argue).
    The main point of course is that it doesn’t actual dispute what I said.

    Still, I’m enjoying watching the opposition media….

    That and “ha ha libtards, take that” still seem to be the main aims and features of this Presidency. Woeful.

  45. I don’t go much to rTFTLC anymore so I’m not going to dredge up every link bomb you make with breathless anticipation after every school shooting. I quit responding to you on those situations as it seemed the last was pretty egregious. I can usually overlook it, but something you posted or linked to was very offensive.

    Every link bomb I make with breathless anticipation after every school shooting?
    Wow, ok. Good one.
    Usually if you’re going to make such a crazy offensive accusation it’s a good idea to remember what the basis of it is. Rather than doubling down on it like you’ve done now.
    Are you trying to impress someone, is that it?
    Did you use a different name at RTFTLC? I don’t recall anyone called brownbag.

    Just own that you’ll use those horrible situations immediately to push an agenda without even letting the shell casings hit the damn ground.

    I’m sure you have reasons, that we’d all probably agree on – fewer shootings, safer schools etc. the issue is you want to remedy that by removing my rights to defend myself and my family. And you try to push my opinion as uncaring or as some he man fetish towards gun. I’d rather do it through better mental health etc. And I’d rather discuss it without exploitation.

    Are you confusing for me someone who advocates for gun-control in the US?

  46. Ah I see. I was referring to the examples of how Trump is very clearly a racist. I linked to a Vox piece but all the examples are sourced.

    Fine, I referred to the wrong Vox link. But you’re still wrong anyway.

    The source for the point you were making for Trump saying that it was “probably true” that he was a racist was from a Playboy interview. Vox took it out of context and falsely made it look like Trump was admitting that the O’Donnell book’s allegations were true. I posted the entire passage from the Playboy interview to show that Trump strongly attacked the credibility of the author and did not imply that the allegations were true as Vox deceptively claimed he did.

    Nothing should be hidden, but everything should be compared properly.

    Yes, it should. And what is significant is that we’re allowing people to immigrate to the US who are more likely than US citizens to go on welfare. There is no reason why we should be allowing anyone to move here who is incapable of supporting himself or herself. It doesn’t matter how they compare to other poor Americans. We have plenty of poor Americans already. We don’t need any more.

    That and “ha ha libtards, take that” still seem to be the main aims and features of this Presidency.

    It’s more of a “value-add” than a main aim. Trump isn’t even the one who’s destroying the reputation and credibility of the American press. They’re doing it to themselves with their partisanship and dishonesty.

  47. Fine, I referred to the wrong Vox link. But you’re still wrong anyway.

    The source for the point you were making for Trump saying that it was “probably true” that he was a racist was from a Playboy interview. Vox took it out of context and falsely made it look like Trump was admitting that the O’Donnell book’s allegations were true. I posted the entire passage from the Playboy interview to show that Trump strongly attacked the credibility of the author and did not imply that the allegations were true as Vox deceptively claimed he did.

    That was only one example (which actually comes from the New York Times, but I assume they’re as bad as Vox). https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/opinion/sunday/is-donald-trump-a-racist.html

    True, we can’t know for sure that when Trump said “The stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true” that he was referring to this in particular:

    O’Donnell, who had been president of the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump as criticizing a black accountant and saying: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” O’Donnell wrote that for months afterward, Trump pressed him to fire the black accountant, until the man resigned of his own accord.

    However Trump COULD have been referring to it. That is the not the same as claiming Kristof” took it out of context and falsely made it look like Trump was admitting that the O’Donnell book’s allegations were true”. If Trump wasn’t referring to the allegations in the book, what was he referring to?
    Even then, your argument is only about the extent of Trump’s denial of that particular example.

    And what is significant is that we’re allowing people to immigrate to the US who are more likely than US citizens to go on welfare.

    You seem to be cherry-picking and promoting the highly questionable CIS claim, even though other studies and assessments say that isn’t true.

    There is no reason why we should be allowing anyone to move here who is incapable of supporting himself or herself.

    So there is no moral or international obligation to take any refugees? The US should now become just an exclusive club?
    Notwithstanding that, you’ve done nothing but put up that CIS claim to support your contention that there is an issue.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-12/africa-is-sending-us-its-best-and-brightest
    https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/1/14/16890042/immigrants-trump-us-tps-shithole-countries-economic-outcomes

    There is no reason why we should be allowing anyone to move here who is incapable of supporting himself or herself. It doesn’t matter how they compare to other poor Americans. We have plenty of poor Americans already. We don’t need any more.

  48. You seem to be cherry-picking and promoting the highly questionable CIS claim, even though other studies and assessments say that isn’t true.

    I don’t think we should allow anyone to immigrate who requires public assistance, except for refugees. You can quibble about whether it’s 51%, 40%, 25%, or even 10% of immigrants all you like. I say it should be 0% of economic immigrants.

    So there is no moral or international obligation to take any refugees?

    I’m not opposed to accepting refugees.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*
*

%d bloggers like this: