Upload
Login or register

marinepenguin

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:1/24/2011
Last Login:9/29/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#5057
Highest Content Rank:#647
Highest Comment Rank:#862
Content Thumbs: 11853 total,  13143 ,  1290
Comment Thumbs: 18530 total,  21283 ,  2753
Content Level Progress: 75% (75/100)
Level 206 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 207 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 74% (740/1000)
Level 313 Comments: Wizard → Level 314 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:5
Content Views:419710
Times Content Favorited:1122 times
Total Comments Made:16205
FJ Points:5988
Favorite Tags: facebook (3) | shit (3) | dont (2) | Gay (2) | is (2) | You (2)

latest user's comments

#128151 - Ultimately the study itself on how much an immigrant family ge…  [+] (1 reply) 2 hours ago on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#128193 - theism (1 hour ago) [-]
I'm curious how exactly you claim benefits without proof of citizenship.
#128149 - The Christian Science Monitor is about as unbiased as the New …  [+] (3 replies) 3 hours ago on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#128150 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
"Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who criticized the center's previous analysis, tells The Christian Science Monitor this recent study is "fatally flawed" in the same way.

"If they actually wanted to count how much welfare immigrants use, they should have just counted the immigrants and the welfare they use, instead of the households of US citizens – that is an apples-to-apples comparison," says Mr. Nowrasteh.

"If we should count them, shouldn't we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants?," wrote Nowrasteh, in his criticism of the September study. "Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative." "

That's the problem with the study.
User avatar
#128151 - marinepenguin (2 hours ago) [-]
Ultimately the study itself on how much an immigrant family gets in welfare means little. The main point I'm trying to make is that illegal immigrants do get welfare, regardless of the law.

This alone creates incentive to immigrate to the US that is incompatible with our current situation.
User avatar
#128193 - theism (1 hour ago) [-]
I'm curious how exactly you claim benefits without proof of citizenship.
#128146 - Not according to the center for immigration studies,…  [+] (5 replies) 3 hours ago on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#128148 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
the center for immigration studies is a conservative think tank created to generate studies for anti-immigration movements. I wouldn't consider them completely reliable as a source. Further the article I linked above addresses that study.
User avatar
#128149 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
The Christian Science Monitor is about as unbiased as the New York Times.

And while I agree that it is the law that most immigrants are unable to receive welfare, we enforce those laws about as much as our immigration laws.
User avatar
#128150 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
"Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who criticized the center's previous analysis, tells The Christian Science Monitor this recent study is "fatally flawed" in the same way.

"If they actually wanted to count how much welfare immigrants use, they should have just counted the immigrants and the welfare they use, instead of the households of US citizens – that is an apples-to-apples comparison," says Mr. Nowrasteh.

"If we should count them, shouldn't we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants?," wrote Nowrasteh, in his criticism of the September study. "Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative." "

That's the problem with the study.
User avatar
#128151 - marinepenguin (2 hours ago) [-]
Ultimately the study itself on how much an immigrant family gets in welfare means little. The main point I'm trying to make is that illegal immigrants do get welfare, regardless of the law.

This alone creates incentive to immigrate to the US that is incompatible with our current situation.
User avatar
#128193 - theism (1 hour ago) [-]
I'm curious how exactly you claim benefits without proof of citizenship.
#128144 - I didn't miss the point, though I agree we don't need a full f…  [+] (8 replies) 3 hours ago on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#128145 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0509/Do-immigrants-receive-more-welfare-money-than-natural-born-US-citizens
Illegal immigrants can't claim public benefits.

Additionally, that doesn't justify the wall. It would justify ending that program.
User avatar
#128147 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
And I'm not using it to justify the wall.
User avatar
#128146 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs.-4431/article/2590744

Not according to the center for immigration studies, and my own personal experiences. My aunt has a boyfriend who's family is illegal and took benefits for the first couple years while here and awaiting a chance to gain legal status
User avatar
#128148 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
the center for immigration studies is a conservative think tank created to generate studies for anti-immigration movements. I wouldn't consider them completely reliable as a source. Further the article I linked above addresses that study.
User avatar
#128149 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
The Christian Science Monitor is about as unbiased as the New York Times.

And while I agree that it is the law that most immigrants are unable to receive welfare, we enforce those laws about as much as our immigration laws.
User avatar
#128150 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
"Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who criticized the center's previous analysis, tells The Christian Science Monitor this recent study is "fatally flawed" in the same way.

"If they actually wanted to count how much welfare immigrants use, they should have just counted the immigrants and the welfare they use, instead of the households of US citizens – that is an apples-to-apples comparison," says Mr. Nowrasteh.

"If we should count them, shouldn't we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants?," wrote Nowrasteh, in his criticism of the September study. "Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative." "

That's the problem with the study.
User avatar
#128151 - marinepenguin (2 hours ago) [-]
Ultimately the study itself on how much an immigrant family gets in welfare means little. The main point I'm trying to make is that illegal immigrants do get welfare, regardless of the law.

This alone creates incentive to immigrate to the US that is incompatible with our current situation.
User avatar
#128193 - theism (1 hour ago) [-]
I'm curious how exactly you claim benefits without proof of citizenship.
#128142 - Yes. A wall with its gate wide open isn't an effective one regardless.  [+] (10 replies) 3 hours ago on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#128143 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
You missed the point. The wall is unnecessary if we clean up visa violations and screen employers from hiring illegals. The walk would just be a waste of money.
User avatar
#128144 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
I didn't miss the point, though I agree we don't need a full fledged medieval wall. Providing vast amounts of welfare to even non-citizens is an even greater waste of money, yet we don't remove that incentive to come here in the first place.
User avatar
#128145 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0509/Do-immigrants-receive-more-welfare-money-than-natural-born-US-citizens
Illegal immigrants can't claim public benefits.

Additionally, that doesn't justify the wall. It would justify ending that program.
User avatar
#128147 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
And I'm not using it to justify the wall.
User avatar
#128146 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs.-4431/article/2590744

Not according to the center for immigration studies, and my own personal experiences. My aunt has a boyfriend who's family is illegal and took benefits for the first couple years while here and awaiting a chance to gain legal status
User avatar
#128148 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
the center for immigration studies is a conservative think tank created to generate studies for anti-immigration movements. I wouldn't consider them completely reliable as a source. Further the article I linked above addresses that study.
User avatar
#128149 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
The Christian Science Monitor is about as unbiased as the New York Times.

And while I agree that it is the law that most immigrants are unable to receive welfare, we enforce those laws about as much as our immigration laws.
User avatar
#128150 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
"Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who criticized the center's previous analysis, tells The Christian Science Monitor this recent study is "fatally flawed" in the same way.

"If they actually wanted to count how much welfare immigrants use, they should have just counted the immigrants and the welfare they use, instead of the households of US citizens – that is an apples-to-apples comparison," says Mr. Nowrasteh.

"If we should count them, shouldn't we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants?," wrote Nowrasteh, in his criticism of the September study. "Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative." "

That's the problem with the study.
User avatar
#128151 - marinepenguin (2 hours ago) [-]
Ultimately the study itself on how much an immigrant family gets in welfare means little. The main point I'm trying to make is that illegal immigrants do get welfare, regardless of the law.

This alone creates incentive to immigrate to the US that is incompatible with our current situation.
User avatar
#128193 - theism (1 hour ago) [-]
I'm curious how exactly you claim benefits without proof of citizenship.
#128140 - No, the wall combined with fixing our work visa program and ac…  [+] (12 replies) 4 hours ago on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#128141 - theism (4 hours ago) [-]
So essentially, the wall and some actually effective policies.
User avatar
#128142 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
Yes. A wall with its gate wide open isn't an effective one regardless.
User avatar
#128143 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
You missed the point. The wall is unnecessary if we clean up visa violations and screen employers from hiring illegals. The walk would just be a waste of money.
User avatar
#128144 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
I didn't miss the point, though I agree we don't need a full fledged medieval wall. Providing vast amounts of welfare to even non-citizens is an even greater waste of money, yet we don't remove that incentive to come here in the first place.
User avatar
#128145 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
m.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0509/Do-immigrants-receive-more-welfare-money-than-natural-born-US-citizens
Illegal immigrants can't claim public benefits.

Additionally, that doesn't justify the wall. It would justify ending that program.
User avatar
#128147 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
And I'm not using it to justify the wall.
User avatar
#128146 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs.-4431/article/2590744

Not according to the center for immigration studies, and my own personal experiences. My aunt has a boyfriend who's family is illegal and took benefits for the first couple years while here and awaiting a chance to gain legal status
User avatar
#128148 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
the center for immigration studies is a conservative think tank created to generate studies for anti-immigration movements. I wouldn't consider them completely reliable as a source. Further the article I linked above addresses that study.
User avatar
#128149 - marinepenguin (3 hours ago) [-]
The Christian Science Monitor is about as unbiased as the New York Times.

And while I agree that it is the law that most immigrants are unable to receive welfare, we enforce those laws about as much as our immigration laws.
User avatar
#128150 - theism (3 hours ago) [-]
"Immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, who criticized the center's previous analysis, tells The Christian Science Monitor this recent study is "fatally flawed" in the same way.

"If they actually wanted to count how much welfare immigrants use, they should have just counted the immigrants and the welfare they use, instead of the households of US citizens – that is an apples-to-apples comparison," says Mr. Nowrasteh.

"If we should count them, shouldn't we also count the welfare use of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren of immigrants?," wrote Nowrasteh, in his criticism of the September study. "Such a way of counting would obviously produce a negative result but it would also not be informative." "

That's the problem with the study.
User avatar
#128151 - marinepenguin (2 hours ago) [-]
Ultimately the study itself on how much an immigrant family gets in welfare means little. The main point I'm trying to make is that illegal immigrants do get welfare, regardless of the law.

This alone creates incentive to immigrate to the US that is incompatible with our current situation.
User avatar
#128193 - theism (1 hour ago) [-]
I'm curious how exactly you claim benefits without proof of citizenship.