I can't speak to the US. In the UK the overwhelming evidence is that in spite of all the slurs about immigrants being drains on public services, they are in the aggregate net contributors. They pay more in tax than they draw out, they are usually young, healthy and work.

Twats. It's a nonsense. With zero revision they were still a net benefit but it plays well to the old fucks that think Ahmed or Jose or Franz has come and taken their fucking job and is living on welfare.

If you read this article and your immediate reaction is to defend immigration and not acknowledge this is a legitimate concern both health and cost wise, you have lost your ability to think clearly.

What does "defend immigration" mean?

Note, I'm not suggesting because of this one article we should extrapolate "all immigrants bad". I'm just saying if you read that article and didn't think, "Well that's an area of immigration that we can all agree we can fix", you have stopped thinking.

Not sure how you think i've stopped thinking

Evidence is not a talking point

Sounds like these are asylum seekers. What is your proposal for how legitimate asylum seekers are handled?

Yeah, I don't know. I'm not an expert in the area and I wouldn't begin to posit a solution.

I certainly wouldn't want to live in the shithole lots of these people come from. However, I can also accept that we need to be thoughtful about the cost, risk, and approach we take to immigration.

The test I posed was if you read that article and didn't think, "Holy hell, what if that was my town they were loading these costs and health risks on?" and instead went right to, "Immigrants good", you might be letting your judgment get crowded by extraneous things.

Whipple said the best offense is a good defense and that each person taken into custody should be given medical screenings by actual medical personnel.

Per the article:



So my suggestion is that Trump put that $5.7B towards providing free health care for asylum seekers rather than building physical barriers.

I just don't see any alternative to re-treating to talking points. There are two diametrically opposing ideas about what to do. One idea is that cutting off almost every avenue to asylum and making the U.S. border like a military DMZ with no housing, food, or health services that immigration will drop because it will appear hopeless. The other idea is to open up asylum and provide services at taxpayer expense. In which case it will definitely relieve the humanitarian problem, but may encourage more so-called "economic migration."

It's a bit of a zero-sum game. I'm not sure there's a ton of middle ground.

Also I'm a bit jaded on this because immigration-as-humanitarian-issue is a newfound talking point (for Trump) introduced during his recent televised special. I'm a bit skeptical as to the sincerity. Of course it's not new. People have been dying for decades in in the border area. It's only sounds like a new problem because of a few deaths made the mainstream media when usually they don't.

that thinks screw the $5.7B for both the wall and the immigrants and invest that money into inner-city schools.

Curious as to your thoughts on sanctuary cities, now states, offering ever more to anyone who makes to their shores. Recent speeches by Newsome offering safe haven and medical for any person that arrives illegally in California, and similar from De Blasio in NYC.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm not an expert in the area and I wouldn't begin to posit a solution.

I certainly wouldn't want to live in the shithole lots of these people come from. However, I can also accept that we need to be thoughtful about the cost, risk, and approach we take to immigration.

The test I posed was if you read that article and didn't think, "Holy hell, what if that was my town they were loading these costs and health risks on?" and instead went right to, "Immigrants good", you might be letting your judgment get crowded by extraneous things.