This reads like something a wasted sorority chick would write in a yearbook. We can observe the complete absence of any moral framework or intellectual ability in this one sample of writing.

Outlines:

1. https://www.removeddit.com/r/wholes... - Outline

^{I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues}

MAYO 👏 FOIDS 👏 KILL 👏 BROWN 👏 BODIES

This, but unironically.

Snapshots:

1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is

2. https://www.removeddit.com/r/wholes... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, archive.is

3. https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomem... - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, removeddit.com, archive.is

^{I am a bot. (Info / Contact)}

[removed]

Illegals are taxpayers in the same way that a jewel thief who steals the Hope Diamond from the Smithsonian and buys a snack from a vending machine on his way out is a paying customer.

No one gives a fuck if some lowlife who stole $200k from the public through welfare fraud paid $500 in taxes.

To no one's great surprise, illiterate vagrants with a 9th grade education (at best) tend to cost the system a fuckton more than they'll ever pay in taxes. America has enough homegrown low IQ retards without importing millions more from south of the border because the homegrown low IQ retards are getting uppity.

Illegals actually pay more invades than they take in welfare. HuffPo is normally shit but it's got a good explanation on this issue. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-undocumented-immigrants-arent-stealing-your-benefits_us_5a144263e4b010527d6780b0

Illegals pay 90 million in taxes and use 5 million in welfare. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/addressing-common-questions-immigration

Apropos of 9th grade educations, is it customary where you come from to cite a paper on an unrepresentative, cherry-picked subset of child refugees who are a subset of legal immigrants when the topic is border-crossing illegal immigrants?

That NBER study is a massive crock of shit, BTW.

Let's say a superbly-educated child refugee who speaks perfect English enters the US at age 13 ("refugees that enter the U.S. before age 14 graduate high school and enter college at the same rate as natives"). Let's say it only costs $16,000 per year to support this genius child refugee through high school and $20,000 per year through college (totaling $160,000). (In reality, independently-conducted studies have found that each refugee costs the UK $70,000 per year and the US $80,000 per year for the first 6+ years, putting the 6-year cost per refugee between $420,000 and $480,000.)

Now let's say our genius child refugee gets a $60,000 per year job immediately after graduating, stays single, and pays tax at one of the highest state + federal rates in the nation (CA). That's a net $15,000 per year in taxes under the highly unrealistic assumption of $0 benefit use after graduating college. Assume our erstwhile child genius stays single and consumes $0 in benefits for the next 11 years while paying $15,000 in taxes each year.

The NBER study claims "refugees pay $21,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their first 20 years in the U.S." So how much more in taxes does our best case scenario genius refugee pay than they receive in benefits over their first 20 years in the U.S.? $5,000. NBER is full of shit.

So can you actually refute anything said in the study? Sorry but 10 minute ballpark hypotheticals mean jack shit if you don't refute the study's data or its methods.

So can you actually refute anything said in the study? Sorry but 10 minute ballpark hypotheticals mean jack shit if you don't refute the study's data or its methods.

Sorry but 10 minute ballpark back of the envelope hypotheticals mean jack shit

That's where you're wrong kiddo. 10 minute ballpark back of the envelope hypotheticals are more than enough to win swing votes, and at the end of the day, that's all that counts.

if you don't thoroughly refute the study's data or its methods and/or provide a study showing a different claim to the one in question.

Nothing could be more mistaken than to thoroughly refute the academic. That is just what the academic wants. He can invent a new crock of shit every day for you to respond to, and the result is that you spends all your time thoroughly refuting bullshit.

Nothing could be more mistaken than to thoroughly refute the academic. That is just what the academic wants. He can invent a new crock of shit every day for you to respond to, and the result is that you spend all your time thoroughly refuting bullshit.

lol are you trying to subvert Bertrand Russell's "you can't debate a fascist" thing? All you're doing is making yourself look like an anti-intellectual jackass.

Win swing votes.

This isn't an election, this is a debate. You need to provide good sources.

"An actual government funded study is a crock of shit, here's what I came up with with 5 minutes and a calculator and it's totally way more credible!"

government funded study

Gotta hand it to you, you made me do a double take. Turns out the study was funded by Catholic Charities USA via LEO @ ND.

Okay, class, let's put on our critical thinking caps. Can anyone tell me why a non-peer reviewed working paper funded by Catholic Charities USA might not be a model of objectivity and academic rigor when it comes to the purported economic benefits of refugees?

Hint: Before Trump's travel ban the federal government was paying Catholic Charities USA 32 million dollars a year to help resettle the refugees it brought in.

Critical thinking exercise: can you think of a reason why Catholic Charities USA might want to oversell the economic benefits of refugees so the government keeps bringing them in?

Because I can think of 32 million reasons why. Now look at the date on the study. Does that sound like credible research to you? Because if it does, I've got some really great stuff from Philip Morris USA to show you.

I'm gonna need a source

Have you tried looking at the part of the paper that says 'Acknowledgements' in big, bold letters?

This is the dumbest comment in the history of reddit. Congratulations.

The competition is stiff but I give it my best.

Illegals are taxpayers in the same way that a jewel thief who steals the Hope Diamond from the Smithsonian and buys a snack from a vending machine on his way out is a paying customer.

lol what exactly are illegal immigrants stealing?

Welfare, aka what they pay for in the form of income tax and contributions to the workforce/economy.

Okay, show me where it says that the girl in the picture, and her father, were paying taxes. I need all the information before making a claim, because for all we know they were being paid cash under the table somewhere.

1. That's irrelevant; I'm talking about migrants in general.

2. They likely have; migrants tend to pay taxes.

Okay I’m not talking about migrants in general I’m talking about this specific case. You just keep saying “likely” or “tend” but can’t actually prove anything.

I'm talking about this specific case.

Got it, you're irrelevant to this discussion, which is about illegals in general.

Um no, this started about a specific girl who was talking about losing her scholarship and in-state tuition because she’s here illegally. I spoke about her. You couldn’t let that go and made a whole new thread to “prove me wrong”, talking about stuff I wasn’t even defending. I never said all illegals don’t pay taxes. I said we don’t know if this girl does. You’re just making up an argument to try to win, or prove something to yourself, or some irrelevant thing I don’t care about.

“You’re irrelevant to this dissuasion.” This isn’t a discussion dude, this is you stating arbitrary facts to me, which are actually informative, but don’t prove me wrong in anyway.

That's the thread in general, m8. This specific comment chain is about immigration in general.

Okay I don’t wanna talk about specific immigration, I never did, I wanted to talk about the original post.

“Makes you look like a fag”. Glad to see you have no legitimate criticism so you divert to name-calling and personal attacks to get your point across.

Also, r/drama sounds like a collective circle-jerk for people that one to be apart of something that can’t IRL or are just looking to start trouble.

Yes, it does make you look like a fag.

Imagone expecting rational debate in /r/drama.

Lol the fact that you had to go back and retrospectively change your comment pretty much proves your arguing no points nor saying anything worth anyone’s times anywhere

Changed 10 minutes before you replied lol, as you can from the lack of asterisk.

“As you can from the lack of asterisk” try forming a coherent sentence again

Can you read?

Did you mean “As you can tell from the lack of asterisk”?

Fag.

I don't get this shit. Even from a social justice perspective it's flat-out unfair. I'm generally in favor of amnesty for assimilated illegal immigrants, but why should somebody who commits fraud to gain university admission and funding get prioritization, let alone support, for putting more weight onto an already overburdened system. Why the everliving fuck should they expect subsidized public secondary education when citizens in their 20s and 30s are often struggling to make ends meet while paying off the same degrees? Especially if said individual is a citizen of a country that offers free university. Fuck this shit. It's one thing to come here and work for a better life, but parasitizing an overburdened system that doesn't even work for the people it was built for is morally indefensible.

why are people so incredibly against entering countries legally? why do some folks just think anyone should be allowed to walk across borders into any country they want?

because that's as big a strawman as "conservatives want to exterminate illegal immigrants"

if there aren't people who actually think in those ways then what's all the fighting about?

people are retarded, what do you expect them to do

You've obviously never been to r/neoliberal

why would i

I mean I didn't say you should, but they're big on open borders shit over there

nothing says 'radical centrist' like toeing the far right party line on immigration

What

This is a common strategy nowadays by some members of the left, where they will take a reasonable position of the right such as "People should be required to come into the country only by the legal immigration process," and then claim it's either the Nazi position or just fabricate a new position that is a far-right position and pretend that's what's being argued about.

Sure that's reasonable, it's the foaming at the mouth about the issue that is strange.

I mean, if you legitimately give a shit about the rights of the laborer, you tend to want to do all that you can to prevent people from getting into situations where they can be exploited.

If a person comes into the US illegally, they put themselves in a position where they will be exploited by companies who will pay them below a minimum wage and potentially blackmail them with deportation if they complain. All the while, they're driving down the price of manual labor by greatly increasing the supply of human bodies while simultaneously being willing to work for pennies on the dollar.

We don't have the birthrate to not have immigrants. If we eliminated illegals to 0, we would have to accept more anyway. A lot of it is wasted effort.

Yeah, we would probably have a better quality people, but we would have to spend a shit ton of effort and money to do it. Bitching about an illegal graduating college is pointless, because that is the exact sort of person we want here.

If we eliminated illegals to 0, we would have to accept more anyway. A lot of it is wasted effort.

...are you trying to imply that everyone who immigrates to the United States is here illegally?

Bitching about an illegal graduating college is pointless, because that is the exact sort of person we want here.

As long as they go through the channels to get here legally. Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of education level. Especially when, in the countries these people tend to come from, a decent education is something only the rich are able to afford.

What.. How did you gather that implication. I am saying we have a certain quota of immigrants that we need. If we spend more effort reducing illegals, we need to also spend more resources vetting legal immigrants.

lol no it isnt otherwise people wouldnt be crying about illegals getting detained

i think it was the whole "children being separated from their parents" thing. Which is good, because the government is trying to put them pack together now.

omg i robbed a bank and im in jail now the government is taking my children away! theyre nazis!

and keeping them together now means put in the same cage or deported together

Counterpoint: Republicans lost the PR war on immigrants so now this is what we gotta do.

It's America. The president is from reality TV. the PR matters.

Republicans lost the PR war on immigrants

i think youll find its only stupid people being vocal and you cant gauge public opinion that easily

Orly?

Stupid People Being Vocal is the entire Trump demographic

Says the Australian. Please tell us more about a county on the opposite side of the world.

let me tell you about a wild new invention called the internet that gives me access to the same information as you

How the fuck would you know the difference between noise and actual public opinion if you aren't actually here?

lol are you for real

the louder the media yells about something the more theyre compensating for a lack of public consensus

all surveys have shown that something like 80% of americans at least staunchly oppose disbanding ice

most people couldnt give a shit about muh separated children, its only the same retards that wear pussy hats and protest against russian interference and their opinions dont mean anything even if theyre repeated ad nauseum in the media

I don't support disbanding ICE and I also don't think illegal immigration is as big of a deal as the right is making it, so what is your point?

well tell your fellow democrats because theyre apparently in love with the idea of courting illegals and idiot twenty somethings

fucking occasio cortez, maxine waters and keith ellison lol cmon they gotta get real at some point

Robbing a bank isn't even remotely comparable to crossing a border.

It is if the person doing the crossing has skin pigmentation that makes Ofays nervous. Actualy it's worse. It's right up there with daring to put your country atop America's oil

Robbed a bank /=/ walking across an imaginary line

Well first it was "children in cages." Then it turned out that it was all a huge lie by the leftist media, using pictures that came from a random liberal protest and trying to pass them off as the real deal.

That's when they switched to "le children separated from le parents 😭😢😭" which they curiously had no issue with when it was happening under the Obama administration.

Were those the pictures that one "reporter" kept linking in her AMA where everyone on reddit was ripping her a new one? There's just too much shit to keep track of/even care about at this point lol

I think it's probably because Trump is a bad president

leftist media

Why would the media want to end capitalism?

Because Alien Jews From a Corporate Galaxy

trump did absolutely nothing wrong separating criminals from their children

Personally I think kids should be kept together with their pedo parents. #loveconquersall

lol@"leftist media"

got any tooth-fairy pics, or a cool story about that time you and Sasquatch caught an antifa and made him eat a moose turd pie?

Lol dude there are highly upvoted comments in that very thread saying "no one is illegal" and demanding completely open borders. There is no strawman here. Just weak, pathetic liberal wimps whose fathers never taught them how to be men.

Why would you want to fuck Zoe Quinn?

To teach her that all men aren't rapists, just sexually underwhelming.

Yeah real men are afraid of outsiders and the thing they're most proud of in this world is their citizenship to the US

Welcome to 2018, when everyone has become the strawmen they were accused of being.

they dont understand economies or due process or the fact that other people following the rules also want in

they dont understand economies

Milton Friedman actually argued that illegal immigration is a good thing for an economy. You get more consumers/taxpayers who aren't eligible for any kind of government benefits.

Libertarian types are generally pro-open borders. Those open borders also must be accompanied by the end of the welfare state, though. It's one or the other.

Those open borders also must be accompanied by the end of the welfare state, though.

That's true for legal immigration, though, not for illegal immigration. If you're here illegally, you're not eligible for welfare.

There are plenty of taxpayer funded social programs in Cali that don't "discriminate" against unlawful residency

Put a wall around the welfare state

provided they pay which they dont

They do pay. Sales tax. Property tax through rent payments.

Also actual income tax through ITINs, as my linked studies show.

Friedman also said you can either have unchecked immigration or a welfare state.

Something about not punishing children for the wrongdoing of their parents might enter into it as well.

okay but i'm not talking about children, i'm talking about adults that knowingly, willingly enter countries without properly immigrating

The girl in the post likely came here as a child.

okay but i'm not talking about children, i'm talking about adults that knowingly, willingly enter countries without properly immigrating

letting an imaginary line decide what to do or don't do

The absolute state of first worlder cucks

In awe at the state of these cucks

thinking borders are a bad idea

this is all that keeps reality from becoming Team America: World Police

borders being real

The jews really got to you lol

Because she most likely came to the country as a child, and as such couldn't have just been like "no mommy coming to America is ILLEGAL, I'm styaing back in Mexico!".

These people are mostly retarded Americans who have a hard time understanding why countries need borders, and why resources tend to be finite.

Oh shit are illegals taking our resources back to their countries?

Yes. Remittances are a thing. I think Moldova‘s and Lesotho’s economies, for example, is hugely dependent on them.

That's a fair point. Immigrants have strong bonds with large families. That tends to die over time though.

No you retard, when you have an increasing population that's already at 0.3+ billion, it pays off to be selective with immigration, so that you can use your resources on your people for a little bit longer. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Hey retard, if we didn't have a surplus of resources, people wouldn't want to be coming here. Our economy is based on immigration right now because we have too many old people and not high enough of a birthrate.

How much of a retarded capitalist bootlicker do you have to be to not understand that continuous growth is highly insustainable and will fuck us all in the future? By 2100, the world will have 10 billion people, 4+ of which from developing (read: poor) nations in Africa. Keeping this in mind, and the fact that the human population is set to exceed 10 Billion, please tell me why you think its a good idea to have unrestricted immigration.

I didn't realize I was dealing with a genius Nostradamus that knows the exact immigration policy we need today for almost a century in the future.

I didn't realize I was dealing with a genius Nostradamus that knows the exact immigration policy we need today for almost a century in the future.

Yeah you're right its better to ignore problems until they become too big to manage. Why even think of the future at all if you ask me?

I didn't say we should have unrestricted immigration, but why spend more resources vetting and preventing illegals, when we can keep the ones that settled into a decent life already and kick the others out?

Did I ever say otherwise? I don't think you should deport non-violent criminals, especially the ones brought over as children. That being said, pretending like all illegal immigration is positive and resources are infinite sets up a really dangerous precedent for the future, which we should be careful about.

We can't predict what we will need that far, and it isn't like we can't adapt policies to what we can foresee. That said it doesn't sound like we really disagree, so I'm just going to call you a faggot.

Uh yes, we can. You sound like rightiods who think global warming isn't an issue because "it snowed here in April!!!", along with the age old excuse of us not being able to predict the future. If the depletion of resources unsustainably is bad today, chances are it'll be bad in 100 years when our population sky rockets, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

That said it doesn't sound like we really disagree, so I'm just going to call you a faggot.

No u

Global warming isn't the same as population control dumb dumb. Worst comes to worst we are actually in need to lock the country down or start a pointless war to balance the numbers. Fact of the matter is, we need more people now or else we will have a strong enough country to worry about a hundred years in the future.

Global warming isn't the same as population control dumb dumb.

No, but both issues have retards arguing about them that don't see any benefit in looking at future consequences. I figured that implication was pretty clear from my comment but I guess it wasn't.

we need more people now or else we won't have a strong enough country to worry about a hundred years in the future.

More capitalist talking points lol. Look id love it if my kids and their children could enjoy a similar standard of living as the one I have right now, which is why I care about sustainability. Even if you're a /r/childfree retard, chances are you'll still be around by 2070 and this shit will affect you as well. My point being we should always plan ahead otherwise we're setting ourselves up for failure. The fact that this won't be a massive issue until half a century from now doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it and actively try to prevent it.

Climate change is a run away train, population is that silly thing that two people need to seesaw up and down. Not enough population can be just as bad as too much population.

Stop thinking you know what to do today to solve a problem in 80 years.

Capitalist systems need unlimited growth, which is disasterous for the environment in the long term. This problem is only made worse when you bring in millions of immigrants (hundreds of millions in the future) without accounting for resource depletion. Not to mention other issues such as integration, internal conflict, and other cultural problems that tend to occur due to mass immigration.

Not enough population can be just as bad as too much population.

Agreed, but a 1.7-1.8 fertility rate doesn't mean you should allow unlimited immigration. I do believe that immigration is useful, but it must be limited and controlled.

Stop thinking you know what to do today to solve a problem in 80 years. Also, what's with all the capitalist digs, comrade?

"don't even think about planning for the future, only idiots do that" lol ok 👌. Also imagine thinking neoliberal capitalism is the only acceptable system and that anything else is automatically wrong.

Dude, American immigration policy is not going to have a huge effect on global population, which is pretty much where your argument has headed.

What are you smoking lmao? Yea no shit it won't stop people from having more and more children elsewhere, but the massive increase in population and therefore in illegal immigration will affect the US. Have you been reading my replies or just the first two sentences? I care a lot more about America's resources than I do about the Congo's.

No, I get your point, but my point is we can react accordingly instead of thinking policy we set today is set in stone until the year 2100. Again, I really don't think we are disagreeing much, but feel free to keep it up.

Oh I know we have almost the same opinion, but we're in r/drama so might as well keep it dramatic.

my point is we can react accordingly instead of thinking policy we set today is set in stone until the year 2100

I never said we should do that. If the birth rate drops to 0.5 in the future then obviously the policy would need changes.

Why are people who will gladly condemn "the violence" of "gang culture" the same ones who get all rabid and territorial about "muh borders"?

That post actually made me unsub from there lol. It used to be a half decent sub about actual wholesome memes but now it's just facebook tier feelgood shit like this

If you ever need a direct example of how spineless your typical leftist male is (as if there aren't enough examples out there already), just take a look at that thread. These cuckolds are so weak, cowardly and afraid of confrontation that they literally want completely open borders with no vetting process whatsoever. My god libshits are despicable. They have lost any semblance of masculinity.

Superman doesn’t dodge bullets. He just stands there and takes it like a man because it really isn’t that big of a deal to him.

unironically using capeshit in a political argument

You are right and so is your fetish.

Lol attacking.

Does the school that graduated her allow students to graduate who didn't get accepted? Does the school let the general public take classes? Does the school let any student attend as long as they pay tuition?

I hope she rapes soybois if Trump was right. it So not a high chance, sadly. :(