Today in Trump's 1st term as President

[dhoobler]

Here is a prediction. The media will soon start reporting the true unemployment rate and will blame the higher rate on Trump.

[philip964]

http://www.newswest9.com/story/34430085 ... mp-protest

Casey Anthony (remember her) was seen with 3000 other protestors outside of Donald Trump's home in Florida.

[TexasJohnBoy]

http://www.newswest9.com/story/34430085 ... mp-protest

Casey Anthony (remember her) was seen with 3000 other protestors outside of Donald Trump's home in Florida.

Just wow.

[Skiprr]

Here is a prediction. The media will soon start reporting the true unemployment rate and will blame the higher rate on Trump.

Ooh. I didn't think about that. But I'll bet you are absolutely correct.

The "Unemployment Rate" we've been used to seeing for eight years is the most attractive to report from the government's standpoint because it paints the rosiest possible picture. People counted as employed include part-time workers, those on long-term disability, those on a leave of absence, and those involved in an employment dispute. To be considered unemployed, one has to have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and be currently available to start employment (and there are strict definitions of "actively looking").

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm):

• The number of people in the labor force. This measure is the sum of the employed and the unemployed. In other words, the labor force level is the number of people who are either working or actively seeking work.
• The national unemployment rate. Perhaps the most widely known labor market indicator, this statistic reflects the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the labor force.
• The labor force participation rate. This measure is the number of people in the labor force as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is either working or actively seeking work.
• The employment-population ratio. This measure is the number of employed as a percentage of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. In other words, it is the percentage of the population that is currently working.

For January 2017:

• National unemployment rate: 4.8% (seasonally adjusted; https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)
• Labor force participation rate: 62.9% (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)
• Employment-population ratio: 59.9% (https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000)
• Total labor underutilization rate: 9.4% (the BLS defines this as "total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force"; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm)

Let's watch precisely what the mainstream media reports on going forward.

[dale blanker]

For the last eight years, anyone who was critical of former president Obama was branded as a racist. For the last two years, anyone who was critical Hillary's candidacy for president was presumed to be a misogynist.

Applying reason, one must conclude that there are two standards, one for democrats and another for republicans. Anyone who cannot understand that reasoning must be a bigot or a fool or a slave.

or immune to bizarre conclusions?

Given the crystal clear example of bias that Skiprr gave, it takes a special kind of obtuseness to call the existence of such bias bizarre. If any bigots, fools or slaves still don't get it, the fact that on November 7, every major poll predicted a win by Hillary should be a clue.

Skiprr's points were well taken but how does that support the "conclusion" that all name calling is one-sided? It's nice to know what you're talking about when you feel compelled to do it.

[parabelum]

Just a little level-check. On January 20, Donald Trump took the oath of office. His first day in office was Saturday, January 21; so during his term so far have been two weekends. Tomorrow, he will have been POTUS for two weeks.

Man, I sure wish he had more energy and a stronger work ethic. After two weeks, you'd think he'd have some work done to show for it.

Nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS was a winner but I suspect most of the rest was for show. "See my signature?" {how silly?]

I hope we haven't ticked off Britain, Mexico, or Australia.

It's good to be supportive but our system's survival requires that we be critical too.

I agree we have to be critical.

Now, can you elucidate me on British, Mexican or Australian immigration policies and statistics?

Let's pretend I'm a prog, or in other words, I am too lazy to dig up facts on my own.

What policies do those countries have in place to safeguard the citizens of their respective Nations?

What about their immigration tolerances?

How much blood, drip for drip, have they shed for protection of minorities and oppressed, in contrast to US?

How much money, coin for coin, have they contributed towards promulgation of peace in the world, in contrast to US?

Lastly, how many of their citizens apply to come to US every year as opposed to US citizens applying for visas etc to Britain, Mexico or Australia?

Thanks and enjoy your afternoon.

[dhoobler]

For the last eight years, anyone who was critical of former president Obama was branded as a racist. For the last two years, anyone who was critical Hillary's candidacy for president was presumed to be a misogynist.

Applying reason, one must conclude that there are two standards, one for democrats and another for republicans. Anyone who cannot understand that reasoning must be a bigot or a fool or a slave.

or immune to bizarre conclusions?

Given the crystal clear example of bias that Skiprr gave, it takes a special kind of obtuseness to call the existence of such bias bizarre. If any bigots, fools or slaves still don't get it, the fact that on November 7, every major poll predicted a win by Hillary should be a clue.

Skiprr's points were well taken but how does that support the "conclusion" that all name calling is one-sided? It's nice to know what you're talking about when you feel compelled to do it.

Name calling? I quoted your signature line.

[dale blanker]

Just a little level-check. On January 20, Donald Trump took the oath of office. His first day in office was Saturday, January 21; so during his term so far have been two weekends. Tomorrow, he will have been POTUS for two weeks.

Man, I sure wish he had more energy and a stronger work ethic. After two weeks, you'd think he'd have some work done to show for it.

Nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS was a winner but I suspect most of the rest was for show. "See my signature?" {how silly?]

I hope we haven't ticked off Britain, Mexico, or Australia.

It's good to be supportive but our system's survival requires that we be critical too.

I agree we have to be critical.

Now, can you elucidate me on British, Mexican or Australian immigration policies and statistics?

Ok, here's a start for you, try Wikipedia:

A 2014 sociological study concluded that: "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations".

[dhoobler]

For the last eight years, anyone who was critical of former president Obama was branded as a racist. For the last two years, anyone who was critical Hillary's candidacy for president was presumed to be a misogynist.

Applying reason, one must conclude that there are two standards, one for democrats and another for republicans. Anyone who cannot understand that reasoning must be a bigot or a fool or a slave.

or immune to bizarre conclusions?

Given the crystal clear example of bias that Skiprr gave, it takes a special kind of obtuseness to call the existence of such bias bizarre. If any bigots, fools or slaves still don't get it, the fact that on November 7, every major poll predicted a win by Hillary should be a clue.

Skiprr's points were well taken but how does that support the "conclusion" that all name calling is one-sided? It's nice to know what you're talking about when you feel compelled to do it.

Neither I nor anyone else concluded that name calling was one sided. The non-bizarre conclusion that I drew, and which you admitted that Skiprr's post supported was that there is a double standard for democrats and for republicans.

[bblhd672]

Just a little level-check. On January 20, Donald Trump took the oath of office. His first day in office was Saturday, January 21; so during his term so far have been two weekends. Tomorrow, he will have been POTUS for two weeks.

Man, I sure wish he had more energy and a stronger work ethic. After two weeks, you'd think he'd have some work done to show for it.

Nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS was a winner but I suspect most of the rest was for show. "See my signature?" {how silly?]

I hope we haven't ticked off Britain, Mexico, or Australia.

It's good to be supportive but our system's survival requires that we be critical too.

I agree we have to be critical.

Now, can you elucidate me on British, Mexican or Australian immigration policies and statistics?

Ok, here's a start for you, try Wikipedia:

A 2014 sociological study concluded that: "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations".

But can you cite credible sources? Wikipedia is a known left-leading organization.

You do understand that the disagreement between Aussie PM and Trump was over 1000 refugees the Aussie's do not want to enter their country?

[mojo84]

Why is Australia trying to push these people off on the US? They even acknowledge 20% of them have not been vetted.

How many of you liberal folks plan to open your homes to these poor "refugees" to help them get acclimated and settled? Will you agree to be responsible for their actions until they become naturalized citizens?

While we are at it, how many poor homeless people do you have living with you in your home? It's cold out this time of year. Have you taken any in or do you just expect the government to do it with other people's money?

If you think refugees have a right to come here, how about granting them a right to come into your home? Seems like some have no interest in acknowledging we have a sovereign country with borders. Maybe we should just devolve into a territory with no borders and turn our homes into communal residences.

[mojo84]

Just a little level-check. On January 20, Donald Trump took the oath of office. His first day in office was Saturday, January 21; so during his term so far have been two weekends. Tomorrow, he will have been POTUS for two weeks.

Man, I sure wish he had more energy and a stronger work ethic. After two weeks, you'd think he'd have some work done to show for it.

Nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS was a winner but I suspect most of the rest was for show. "See my signature?" {how silly?]

I hope we haven't ticked off Britain, Mexico, or Australia.

It's good to be supportive but our system's survival requires that we be critical too.

I agree we have to be critical.

Now, can you elucidate me on British, Mexican or Australian immigration policies and statistics?

Ok, here's a start for you, try Wikipedia:

A 2014 sociological study concluded that: "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations".

Speaking of Australia, notice how they treat illegal aliens.
Maybe we should adopt their policy on this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mmigrants/


The issue is not immigration. It's illegal immigration, accepting unvetted people claiming to be refugees and people from countries known to be friendly and supportive of terrorists. Liberals always try to reframe the issue.

When it comes to immigrating, the USA seems to rank pretty high. http://www.immigrationworld.com/etc/top ... le-easily/

[Skiprr]

A 2014 sociological study concluded that: "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations".

I believe you may be muddling "legal immigration" with "illegal immigration."

Australia

In 2012, Australia received a total of nearly 15,800 asylum claims, up 37 percent from the previous year, according to the United Nations. The country's Department of Immigration and Citizenship states that the Migration Act 1958 requires any noncitizen or person who is unlawfully in Australia to be detained. People without a valid visa are considered unlawful—including children. Migrant children, especially asylum seekers, have been detained in immigration detention centers for months or even years.

The Australian Government has responded to human rights complaints by removing children from detention centers and into community detention, or local housing. However, as of February 2013, there were still 1,062 children in the detention centers, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Amid all the controversy, reports in April indicated that preparations have been made to bring children back to the notorious Curtin Immigration Detention Centre, which closed down in 2002 due to riots and protests. It reopened in 2011 and currently holds only adult single men. A portion of the center could be declared an "alternate place of detention," which the government does not define as a detention center.

If you would like a Wikipedia link, try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_i ... _Australia.

Another source: http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/australia-il ... t-welcome/. This is regarding the 2013 proclamation by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat will be sent to Papua New Guinea for processing and resettlement and none will be allowed to stay in the country.

Rudd's pre-election message is that Australia's borders are closed to illegal arrivals. The announcement was made at a joint press conference with the prime minister from Papua New Guinea.

"From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as a refugee," Rudd told reporters.

This would be the equivalent of America sending all just-caught arriving illegals from now on to Bolivia, and stating that because of the circumstances under which they originally came, they will never have a chance to be settled in America.

An additional source for that: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-19/m ... sy/4830778.

The best source I found on a quick search shows that approximately 58,400 people are unlawfully in Australia. The population of Australia is 24.6 million. That means 2.37% are "unlawful" and, remember, if you overstay your visitor's visa to Australia by a single day, you are now "unlawful."

We're much more lax in the U.S. in our determination of undocumented versus documented aliens. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security produced its first-ever estimate of foreign visitors to U.S. who overstayed their visa expirations. Unlike Australia and other countries, we had never scrutinized this before. The result was that the agency estimated about 416,500 people who arrived in the U.S. under valid visas in 2015 were still in the country in 2016 without a valid visa.

By way of further comparing Australia with the U.S. is this brief from the Pew Research Center. Although some sources place the number much higher, the Pew studies indicate there were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014, accounting for 3.5% of the nation’s population. The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work. Six states accounted for 59% of unauthorized immigrants in 2014: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

Add in that recently discovered number of 416,500 without valid visas, and the number of unauthorized U.S. immigrants climbs to over 11.5 million, and raises the percentage of illegals to 3.63% of the U.S. population.

Australians were up in arms when their population of illegals grew to 2.37%--and most of those are visa overstayers, not people who entered without a visa--yet the left in America screams that President Trump would question a deal to accept over 1,200 undocumented aliens from Australian detention camps--sight unseen and with no vetting--while at least 3.63% of our own population is comprised of illegals for whom the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and Homeland Security have little or no information at all. Likewise lost in all the furor and demonstrations over the 90-day temporary suspension of inadequately documented arrivals from Iran, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and Sudan is that these countries were selected due to the determination--prior to the president taking office--that they could not provide sufficient information about the travelers leaving their borders.

We have a demonstrable problem with illegal immigration in the U.S. that neither Australia nor Canada have. To close, let's look more closely at that starting estimate that we have 11.1 undocumented aliens living in the U.S.

The base number originated with a December 2003 broad estimate by the Department of Homeland Security which indicated 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the country and that 700,000 new illegals enter each year and remain here. Those estimates have not changed for twelve years, even though the official annual increase alone would mean a corrected estimate of 17 million to 21 million today (not adjusting for deaths, departures, or the border rush we saw a couple of years ago). But the number could be even higher.

There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure.

Estimates of the size of the illegal alien population currently living in the U.S. range from about 12 million to over 20 million. The lower number is based on Census Bureau estimates of the foreign-born population in various Census Bureau surveys. The larger number is based on methodology that is not reliant on a respondent’s candor... it is virtually impossible to get an accurate count of populations who are resistant to being identified. Given the problem of porous borders and incentives to avoid detection, the higher estimate is not unreasonable.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports.

Link to that interesting summer 2007 issue, whose estimates are now a decade old, of The Social Contract: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman ... ndex.shtml.

One of President Trump's campaign issues was illegal immigration. Legal immigration is not and will never be a problem in this country. Even we now hated and reviled conservatives love and embrace those who move here legally and obey our laws. We value and seek diversity.

But our government has long exerted far too little control over those who come here illegally. I'll bet you $100 that the average Australian would be positively shocked at how lax our immigration control is. And if James Walsh's estimate of 38 million is correct, not even adjusting for an increase since the 2007 date he wrote it, that would mean fully 12% of our population is undocumented. We neither need nor want to kick them all out of the country. But we do need to eliminate a large "ghost" population by getting them documented, on a path to citizenship if they want it, and getting those who are felons, violent offenders, and the multiply-deported out of here.

[Skiprr]

Speaking of Australia, notice how they treat illegal aliens.
Maybe we should adopt their policy on this.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mmigrants/

The issue is not immigration. It's illegal immigration, accepting unvetted people claiming to be refugees and people from countries known to be friendly and supportive of terrorists. Liberals always try to reframe the issue.

When it comes to immigrating, the USA seems to rank pretty high. http://www.immigrationworld.com/etc/top ... le-easily/

Okay. So you said quickly what I spent 40 minutes typing...even found one of the same sources. I gotta learn to be more succinct and less long-winded. I tried to ask TAM for some lessons, but he said he was to busy writing....

[parabelum]

Just a little level-check. On January 20, Donald Trump took the oath of office. His first day in office was Saturday, January 21; so during his term so far have been two weekends. Tomorrow, he will have been POTUS for two weeks.

Man, I sure wish he had more energy and a stronger work ethic. After two weeks, you'd think he'd have some work done to show for it.

Nominating Gorsuch to SCOTUS was a winner but I suspect most of the rest was for show. "See my signature?" {how silly?]

I hope we haven't ticked off Britain, Mexico, or Australia.

It's good to be supportive but our system's survival requires that we be critical too.

I agree we have to be critical.

Now, can you elucidate me on British, Mexican or Australian immigration policies and statistics?

Ok, here's a start for you, try Wikipedia:

A 2014 sociological study concluded that: "Australia and Canada are the most receptive to immigration among western nations".

Thanks Dale, appreciate your insight.

So...what exactly is the point of your arguments here?

Trump is racist?
He's too weak?
Too strong?
America is rotten?
Illegals are all dreamers?
You wish to take some refugees into your own home but that pesky Trump is getting in the way?
Republicans bad, Democrats good?
America hasn't shed enough blood and spent enough on refugees?