(03-09-2021 01:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-07-2021 06:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What if Democrats support laws that make legal immigration easier because, hold your hats, they believe that immigrating to the US should be easier and NOT because of the potential political leanings of said voters?

I hope I attributed this correctly.

It is absolutely true that many Democrats (as well as many Republicans) support the idea that America is the land of opportunity and a place that should welcome more immigrants.

I am one of them... but I am a pragmatist.

We don't have many highly educated/high earners crossing our southern border illegally... nor do we have them living 'in the shadows' for long. They much more often come here with skills and education and overstay their visa. They work below their capabilities, but well above the unskilled 'day laborer' making $5-8/hr. A skilled illegal carpenter can easily make $20/hr. They integrate well into the communities and often eventually use their children or spouse's citizenship to make a better life for themselves.

The uneducated/unskilled illegal alien is therefore a massive expense to education, a massive criminal risk (as a criminal OR especially a victim), potentially a drag to some community standards and with some regularity (especially if they are older) VERY limited potential for upward mobility within the payroll structure, which depresses wages for everyone else near the bottom of the pay scale.

I'm perfectly okay with helping these people; not all are but I am... for me, the problem is that we don't know who they are or what they need. We get called racists if we do something like suggest that its better to teach them 'educational English' first as opposed to teaching them in their native languages... or that we place them in 'skill' rather than 'age' appropriate settings. Separate IS inherently unequal... but the whole purpose of 'separate' in this sense is to fill the gap. We would/should do the same if someone were home schooled and wanted to go to public schools. We should test that person in English and place them in 'skill level' appropriate classes.

People can disagree with my thoughts above, but those thoughts aren't based on race or racism. They are based on leveling (as much as possible) the playing field in order for everyone to progress as opposed to simply lowering the bar for everyone. Kids who don't go to k-3 are almost always going to be behind those who do... but by 5th or 6th grade, the differences could be immaterial.... and one bilingual teacher can teach 20 students, but it might take a bilingual math teacher and a bilingual english teacher and a bilingual science teacher etc etc etc to teach those same 20 students 'each' class.

It's also true though that some Republicans don't want those foreigners here... some are as much against the white ones as any other race... AND it is true that some Democrats (especially those who work in party strategy) mostly care about the political leanings of that group.

Said differently, The people who vote straight ticket regardless of issues/people likely care more about party than people. Those who consider issues/people, even if they almost always end up voting in one direction are more likely to be 'mixed' on the issue.

(03-09-2021 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I saw 5%

https://reason.com/2021/03/04/the-covid-...giveaways/

Quote:Only about 5 percent of that total is funding public health efforts related to the pandemic, according to the nonpartisan number crunchers at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). There are a few other things in the bill that could be counted as "relief," like the $7 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and another $40 billion in emergency loans for restaurants, bars, music venues, airlines, and other industries. Those payments and programs aren't all necessary but, as The Wall Street Journal notes, at least recipients will have to demonstrate economic losses to get the money.

The above isn't talking about COVID related, but direct public health efforts. So it ignores the $1,400 checks, which are clearly COVID related ($422 billion), as well as state and local government assistance (including schools) which is $519 billion.

These numbers may be slightly different in the final bill (I believe the source was based on the House bill, and not what the Senate passed), but it gives a good explanation as to why thru 9% and 5% statement in regards to being "COVID related" as OO said, is pure bunk.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fact...887487002/

The 1400 are 25% of the bill. They aren't 100% necessarily Covid related. For people out of work or facing price increases as a result of COVID, they are... but not every family earning <150k is experiencing that.

Is all of the 519byn for schools covid related? I'm betting there are some debatable (at best) portions of that number.

I'm not really arguing whether it is 5 or 9%... I'm saying that it depends on how you define 'covid related'. Even the $1400 per person and the extension of unemployment benefits isn't necessarily 100% Covid related. SOME people were unemployed before COVID hit.

To the last, while you may not be saying that, two other posters did argue specific percentages.

Go ahead and debate the merits of the bill, whether it was too big, too small, not focused on X, Y, or Z. But don't make disingenuous arguments about how related to COVID-19 the bill is, when you need to make some hair splittingly silly (or illogical) distinctions to make the narrative work. The two previous posters did just that.