Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it's quantity over quality in how we 'feel' again ignoring Congress's inability to do their job, in how we 'feel' about EOs.
The issue with DACA is not a potus, but rests within Congress's hands to rectify that situation. That isn't a deflection when it's the truth. (congress is suppose to be running things, not the potus and certainly not EO, which are policy not law)
Your question has been asked and answered. If you do not like the answer(s), ask a different question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
How, exactly, were Trump's EOs any more "legal" (according to you) than Obama's? You do understand the reasons behind EOs and why Presidents issue them, right? From your posting history on the subject, I'd say you don't. Neither do those other two. That's why they haven't responded to my question.
You don't understand --- this country is set up to go through a system of checks and balances. When something jumps the line and is treated as if it is law, then that negates our freedoms and has us reliant upon a dictatorship. I don't care who the potus is --- it is not okay. PS: this is congress not doing their job: Executive Orders 101: What are they and how do Presidents use them?
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 07-20-2021 at 08:16 PM..
Lets get real here. These DACA folks? Theyve grown up as Americans. And DACA made that possible. It was also a unconstitutional over reach in my opionion that the president did at the time to avoid doing something he viewed as monstrous. Throwing out kids who grew up as Americans. Something congress was willing to do by ignoring the issue.
It was wrong to do it though. It was unconstitutional. He should have used his bully pulpit to shame them into doing something. And by delaying and delaying while rubbing their faces into what they were doing. But hindsight is 20/20 too.
So lets face reality. Are we the monsters who throw out people who grew up thinking they were Americans, and who ARE our neighbors, and friends? Or are we the people that do the right thing?
If we want DACA, our federal representatives need to change the law. But if we want to look ourselves in the mirror we need to make the folks currently in it US citizens, and then decide if we want a DACA program or not going forward. Stopping the applications to it should have been done years ago. If we want DACA it needs to be done via congress. Not executive order.
So it's quantity over quality in how we 'feel' again ignoring Congress's inability to do their job, in how we 'feel' about EOs.
The issue with DACA is not a potus, but rests within Congress's hands to rectify that situation. That isn't a deflection when it's the truth. (congress is suppose to be running things, not the potus and certainly not EO, which are policy not law)
Your question has been asked and answered. If you do not like the answer(s), ask a different question.
"(congress is suppose to be running things,"
Must be dem controlled public school "educated"
What you did NOT learn in school is that w have 3 CO-EQUAL ranches of government.
"The issue with DACA is not a potus, but rests within Congress's hands to rectify that situation"
Please provide the bill number from each, the House and Senate, that passed DACA and the vote count.
"Since President Barack Obama signed the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order in 2012"
"If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall."
The current population replacement level in the u.s. is 1.79; as you can see the population is not (2.0) replacing itself, which leaves the population numbers with an increased aging population with fewer children for back up, when they die.
If this trend continues in about 25 years, there will be an economic impact on the u.s. that people will begin to be able to feel the effects. The u.s. would be feeling it now if it wasn't for the illegal immigration population that we have now, that are making their contributions to society (expressed in WRM20, post).
In the United States, the Number of active DACA recipients (as of March 2021): 616,030; the MPI 2020 estimate of the immediately eligible population: 1,331,000.
Which would you rather have an increase in population by 5-10% overnight, which wouldn't be an increase at all since they are already residing here --- or have the population decrease overnight by 1,331,000, with no way to replace their buying power? (or use your number of 11-30MM?)
Decide what is best for the country and decide its fate. I do want this country to receive everything is so richly deserves and I do mean that from the bottom of my heart. So deciding its fate, just know that in 25-50 years, you will be able to reap the rewards from that decision.
Here's what's wrong with your premise...
You can't consider only "replacement level" in isolation. Here's why...
The problem is that the US cannot afford to support what the Fed Gov has set up to be an exponentially increasing underclass. On top of unmitigated immigration of mostly under-educated, no/low-skill, and low wage workers, the US also has the problem that results when over-breeding among the non-contributing class is financially incentivized via a plethora of public assistance and federal nutrition programs.
The poor are paid to breed via both public assistance benefits andrefundable tax credits. Hence, we have the following statistic noted by the US Census Bureau: Women on public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance (source: US Census Bureau). Easily confirmed by the fact that while the US poverty rate is 10.5%, nearly half (50%) of all US births each year are paid for by Medicaid, the free health care program for the poor.
A math-based explanation of the problem follows, though many will not be able to wrap their heads around it...
As already noted, the US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance as a group have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
Do you all recognize the problem for our society that presents?
And it's the direct result of interfering with and thwarting the evolutionary process of natural selection. When society eschews natural selection in favor of incentivizing the proliferation of the poorest/weakest of a population by allowing their mass migration and/or paying them to breed, as the US has done, it devolves.
The consequent increasing income/wealth gap we are experiencing is no accident. The government has socially engineered exactly that result by financially rewarding over-breeding and over-migration among the no/low-income. Not only does that negatively impact an otherwise increasing average income, it pools a disproportionately larger percentage of people on the below average end of the income spectrum, which will eventually be financially unsustainable not only for providing the underclass with public assistance benefits, but also for the seniors who've contributed to Social Security and Medicare for 4-5 decades and expect to receive those benefits in return. There simply will be no way to tax society's decreasing contributing class enough to pay for all of that.
"If the number falls below approximately 2.1, then the size of the population starts to fall."
The current population replacement level in the u.s. is 1.79; as you can see the population is not (2.0) replacing itself, which leaves the population numbers with an increased aging population with fewer children for back up, when they die.
If this trend continues in about 25 years, there will be an economic impact on the u.s. that people will begin to be able to feel the effects. The u.s. would be feeling it now if it wasn't for the illegal immigration population that we have now, that are making their contributions to society (expressed in WRM20, post).
In the United States, the Number of active DACA recipients (as of March 2021): 616,030; the MPI 2020 estimate of the immediately eligible population: 1,331,000.
Which would you rather have an increase in population by 5-10% overnight, which wouldn't be an increase at all since they are already residing here --- or have the population decrease overnight by 1,331,000, with no way to replace their buying power? (or use your number of 11-30MM?)
Decide what is best for the country and decide its fate. I do want this country to receive everything is so richly deserves and I do mean that from the bottom of my heart. So deciding its fate, just know that in 25-50 years, you will be able to reap the rewards from that decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Here's what's wrong with your premise...
You can't consider only "replacement level" in isolation. Here's why...
The problem is that the US cannot afford to support what the Fed Gov has set up to be an exponentially increasing underclass. On top of unmitigated immigration of mostly under-educated, no/low-skill, and low wage workers, the US also has the problem that results when over-breeding among the non-contributing class is financially incentivized via a plethora of public assistance and federal nutrition programs.
The poor are paid to breed via both public assistance benefits andrefundable tax credits. Hence, we have the following statistic noted by the US Census Bureau: Women on public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance (source: US Census Bureau). Easily confirmed by the fact that while the US poverty rate is 10.5%, nearly half (50%) of all US births each year are paid for by Medicaid, the free health care program for the poor.
A math-based explanation of the problem follows, though many will not be able to wrap their heads around it...
As already noted, the US Census Bureau has determined that, consistently, women on public assistance as a group have a birth rate 3 times higher than those not on public assistance.
Anyone who understands compounded population growth projection will understand that this is a recipe for disaster. It's mathematically unsustainable. Period.
I'll give an example of the future consequences using the following formula (compounded population growth projection) and values, given the rate ratios we already know (non-poor : poor = 1 : 3), after a time period of 50 years (roughly, the time span of two generations), and using a small sample size for the sake of making an easier comparison.
The formula is:
present value x (e)^kt = future value
where e equals the constant 2.71828..., k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, e.g. 5% would be 0.05), and t is the number of years (or other unit, as long as it is the same as k) over which the growth is to be measured.
Given: 100 births/year. 52 non-poor. 48 poor.
k for the non-poor = 1% = 0.01
k for the poor = 3% = 0.03
Non-poor population after 50 years: 85.73
Poor population after 50 years: 215.12
They began at:
Non-poor: 52%
Poor: 48%
And after 50 years of population growth given the rate ratios we already know, that results in:
Non-poor: 28.5%
Poor: 71.5%
Do you all recognize the problem for our society that presents?
And it's the direct result of interfering with and thwarting the evolutionary process of natural selection. When society eschews natural selection in favor of incentivizing the proliferation of the poorest/weakest of a population by allowing their mass migration and/or paying them to breed, as the US has done, it devolves.
The consequent increasing income/wealth gap we are experiencing is no accident. The government has socially engineered exactly that result by financially rewarding over-breeding and over-migration among the no/low-income. Not only does that negatively impact an otherwise increasing average income, it pools a disproportionately larger percentage of people on the below average end of the income spectrum, which will eventually be financially unsustainable not only for providing the underclass with public assistance benefits, but also for the seniors who've contributed to Social Security and Medicare for 4-5 decades and expect to receive those benefits in return. There simply will be no way to tax society's decreasing contributing class enough to pay for all of that.
If they are being paid to breed why is the u.s. at a birth rate level of 1.79? I would think that would be a much higher rate. (investigate birth rates of all groups, and get back with me on that)
If they are low skilled, how is it immigrants rate high among business start ups and innovation, this country seems to enjoy. By today's standards Tesla wouldn't be allowed off the ship with only 4 cents in his pockets. I'm not sure but isn't Tesla one that also ranks high enough in earnings that he too falls into the pool along with Jeff Bezos, of the ones not paying income tax? The difference between them one being an American born, the other an immigrant.
And when you talk about public assistance, the reason people are on them is because of the economic hardships placed on them by the government's inability to create an environment, where those programs are not necessary. The people didn't ask for the inability to get a job and grow a career, but that is what the government has provided for them instead. Blaming people for something that was done to them, not for them, is disingenuous at best.
To be honest I don't believe the u.s. should be allowed to depend on another group of people to help in repopulating the (largest population born) Baby Boomers exit --- incorporating more misery into (the ratios) the u.s. is only going to assist the government in maintaining their standards of living, and put many of those coming in, within the same boat as those already here. However, I do want this country to receive everything is so richly deserves and I do mean that from the bottom of my heart.
If they are being paid to breed why is the u.s. at a birth rate level of 1.79?
Because only the underclass, not everyone, is being paid to breed via public assistance program benefits and they take more than they contribute. It's a recipe for economic disaster.
Again, an over-reproducing underclass and millions of no/low education, no/low-skill illegal aliens will not pay enough in taxes to fund government programs like Social Security, Medicare, public assistance programs, etc. What the Dems are doing is mathematically unsustainable. Their policies will continue to cause society to devolve.
I wonder why that poster keeps calling illegal aliens plain ole immigrants? Even though they can't lawfully vote there is evidence that some do since they have no morals or scruples anyway.
That makes no sense. Someone here illegally is NOT going to register to vote. They are hiding from all authority. If not registered, they are not allowed to vote.
That makes no sense. Someone here illegally is NOT going to register to vote. They are hiding from all authority. If not registered, they are not allowed to vote.
They get registered to vote through various states' Motor Voter laws. When they get a driver's license (and, yes, MANY states give illegal aliens driver's licenses), they're automatically registered to vote. So they do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though they can't lawfully vote there is evidence that some do since they have no morals or scruples anyway.
