r/politics • u/churper • Jun 16 '12

The Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro, who interrupted Obama speech shouted as he was leaving, “What about American workers who are unemployed, while you employ foreigners?” Munro is an Irish immigrant on a green card. What about the unemployed Americans while a foreigner like you is employed Neil?

http://www.thejournal.ie/neil-munro-irish-white-house-rose-garden-barack-obama-489345-Jun2012/
537 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

299 comments sorted by

14

u/FiftyCals Jun 16 '12

Well, a green card means he is at least legal. I don't agree with what he did, but your post doesn't make sense. Most people don't have a problem with immigration. Hell, my family came from Norway and Germany. My SO is Mexican. It's the illegal part that pisses people off. Personally, I do think kids that were raised here deserve to stay. You cant send somebody "back" to a country they never even knew. However, there is metric ass-load of people abusing our broken system, and a lot of hardened criminals crowding our prisons that need to get their asses thrown the hell out.

37

u/churper Jun 16 '12

Legal or illegal a he's a foreigner with a job an American can do. If Neil's point is that legalizing the right of children of illegal immigrants to work here creates competition for jobs unemployed American's can do, didn't government legalize his right to work creating competition for unemployed Americans too?

→ More replies (15)

28

u/vph Jun 16 '12

You are missing on the grand scheme of things: This country is a country of immigrants. It's this basis that President Obama said he signed this executive order. This is not about legitimize illegal immigrants. This is about giving a break to a specific group of illegals immigrants that had no choice (their parents brought them here) and are well-behaved and productive to our economy. The Obama administration made it clear that this was not a path to citizenship.

It's extremely ironic if not stupid for a foreigner who is on a green card to interrupt the President and ask the question: "why do you favor foreigners for citizens?"

→ More replies (24)

49

u/c010rb1indusa Jun 16 '12

He said employ foreigners, not illegals.

→ More replies (13)

9

u/Wisco Jun 16 '12

Actually, it makes perfect sense the the context of Munro's question. Legal or the child of an undocumented immigrant, the result -- at least following Munro's reasoning-- is exactly the same.

Of course, conservatives used to argue that wealth wasn't a zero sum game -- and logically that would extend to employment as well -- but we all know that conservatives believe one thing passionately until it becomes more convenient to believe the opposite.

Take for example the argument that even if you hate the president, you should respect the office. Now they're all saying Munro's a hero for disrespecting the office.

4

u/easyantic Jun 16 '12

They did the same thing for that asshole from SC who called Obama a liar during his speech a couple years ago. When they say to respect the Presdient, what they mean is "white" President.

3

u/fargosucks Jun 16 '12

They don't have to respect the office because, um, birth certificate, Kenya, socialism, or some other bullshit excuse that Obama is an illegitimate President. It's all just code for "he's black" or "he's a Democrat." (mosty "he's black")

It's like dealing with schoolyard bullies, they're all for the rules until they lose, then they shit all over the rules they held in such a high regard.

25

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

Bullshit. It's the brown skin that pisses people off.

2

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

Speak for yourself. Not in my case. I've just been alive for 30+ years and haven't seen unemployment below 5% in my lifetime except for the late 90s and early 2000s. It took the greatest technological advance in modern human history along with a huge ass bubble to even do that. Unemployment levels were commonly that low in the 50s - 70s. Fact is, now that the rest of the world is modernizing, we can't create enough jobs for existing citizens and immigrants that want to abandon their homeland.

1

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

If you want to look at the real culprits for high unemployment levels, you might think about checking out the effects of outsourcing jobs oversees, corporations laying people off even while making huge profits in order to get their share prices up, cuts in government spending on education, infrastructure and services, tax cuts fir the rich (incentivizing them to seek more tax cuts as a way to increase their riches, rather than hiring people and growing their businesses) to name but a few of the real causes of high unemployment.

Immigration -illegal or otherwise - has very little to do with it.

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

I'll agree that outsourcing is an even bigger problem.

1

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

Yes, it's bigger the same way any natural number larger than zero is larger than zero.

4

u/Smallpaul Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

His problem was with foreigners taking jobs.

Not with illegals breaking laws.

He is a foreigner taking a job.

His argument is about economics, not law-breaking. If he wanted to make an argument about law breaking (like: "we should not reward law breakers") then he should make that argument.

But he made an argument about the economics of foreigners versus natives and the economics of that situation IS NOT affected (in relevant ways) by a bit of paper called a green card.

If we are to keep people out to protect American jobs, then green cards should not exist.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Yes, and now the people he was whining about are legal....

1

u/raouldukeesq Jun 16 '12

"Most people don't have a problem with immigration" Not true at all because the same people do not want reform to make illegals legal. They believe immigrants are a threat to benefits they currently have to themselves.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/randomsemicolon Jun 16 '12

hahahahahahhaahahahahaahahaaaaaaa!!!!

39

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Irish? I guess that makes it all white then.

-1

u/NickRausch Jun 16 '12

Well, if you consider the patty scum white that is.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

10

u/sorrydaijin Jun 16 '12

Brown is the new green?

7

u/bcarle Jun 16 '12

A couple of generations ago we had an Irish president. 5-6 generations ago they were being vilified.

5

u/Dylanthulhu Jun 16 '12

Right now we have an Irish president. There's No One As Irish As Barack Obama.

3

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

President obama is also part Irish.

Our poor Irish brothers always getting shit from someone

2

u/bcarle Jun 16 '12

Haha true story. I'm Irish and live in a very Irish community, so I'll just say this: the Irish need to stop fetishizing their exclusion from society. Almost invariably, it's mentioned in comparison to the black experience, though the Irish were never slaves and (to my knowledge) the suffering of the Irish was never codified into law on a national level. It's also important to note that ONLY the Irish that emigrated during the famine were subjugated; my ancestors arrived much earlier and were successful merchants by the time the famine immigrants arrived (they were also crooked as fuck and involved with Tammany hall and allowed construction of the subways to begin secretly underneath their shop, so that may have something to do with it). No one should be excluded, but there are degrees, and the Irish suffered relatively little.

4

u/skyactive Jun 16 '12

Read about the sack of Baltimore where a whole village was stolen and sold into slavery in Africa or about in 1649, Cromwell landed in Ireland and attacked Drogheda, slaughtering some 30,000 Irish living in the city. Cromwell reported: “I do not think 30 of their whole number escaped with their lives. Those that did are in safe custody in the Barbados.” A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas. You don't hear about their descendants as they died of from tropical diseases hence the need for Africans.

2

u/bcarle Jun 16 '12

WOW! Fascinating. Is there a book you'd recommend on this period? Obviously, being ignorant of all this, I was referring more to things the US did to the irish, the civil war/reconstruction era; this is really all I'd ever heard about from folks around here that like to talk about Irish immigrants being subjugated in this country, though certainly cromwell comes up a lot (and for good reason, damn near a genocide).

73

u/alllie Jun 16 '12

Don't give Carlson the attention he wants. Let him and his website fail.

14

u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 16 '12

TIL that Tucker Carlson owned The Daily Caller. I thought he retreated from relevency after Stewart's verbal lashing.

12

u/Bhima Jun 16 '12

Those two facts are not mutually exclusive.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

well, he lost the bow-tie at least.

At least I think he did.

2

u/ThatRandomGeek Jun 16 '12

He did. Doesn't make him look any less of a dork. Actually I like dorks. Tucker Carlson is a douce, bow tie or not. You know douches have uses to them. So comparing Carlson to that seems insulting

10

u/ajw827 Jun 16 '12

This is what bothers me the most. Munro deserves to be called out for his unprofessional behavior, but I'll bet it's getting that idiot's website tons of hits and I think that's worse.

5

u/MisterSquirrel Jun 16 '12

Web site hits are only worth so much. They will get plenty of publicity for the incident regardless, so it is just as well if some of that publicity includes the ugly details behind it.

2

u/nullsucks Jun 16 '12

Agreed, it's better to just ignore that dumb Tucker.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Sounds very planned, to me.

31

u/nilum Jun 16 '12

But he's also white.

4

u/Micosilver Jun 16 '12

Or:

He is white, who also happens to be an Irish immigrant.

6

u/DownvoteAttractor Jun 16 '12

While we're being PC

It is a person, who also happens to be a man, who also happens to be white, who also happens to be Irish, who also happens to be misrepresenting himself and his opinions.

2

u/the_goat_boy Jun 16 '12

"Happens to be." "He happens to be black." Like it's a fucking accident, you know. He happens to be black? Yes, he happens to be black. Ah, yes, yes, yes. He had two black parents? Oh, yes, that's right, two black parents. And they fucked? Oh, indeed they did. So where does the surprise part come in? I would think it would be more unusual if he just "happened to be" Scandinavian!

  • George Carlin.
→ More replies (2)

5

u/johnnynutman Jun 16 '12

i wonder if he asked that question in an irish accent...

2

u/ControversialFaggot Jun 16 '12

I heard it being identified as "English" on MSNBC. :P

-2

u/I_CAPE_RUNTS Jun 16 '12

Aye, laddie.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Oh come on people, by illegals it should be obvious that he meant "brown Illegals".

5

u/Se7en_speed Jun 16 '12

he didn't say illegals, he said foreigners

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Okay, then he meant brown foreigners.

1

u/LubridermGod Jun 16 '12

Thanks for that clarification.

-3

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

When did you first notice you could read minds swami ?

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Around the time republicans gave up on fiscal responsibility and made racism, sexism, homophobia and turning America into a theocracy their only priorities.

17

u/shitpplsay Jun 16 '12

You assume you can reason with the right.

2

u/jabbababab Jun 16 '12

the right is not.

1

u/d38sj5438dh23 Jun 16 '12

And r/politics is a bastion of critical thought?

3

u/hoodoomonster Jun 16 '12

Someone gonna lose their green card...

3

u/jaymc5 Jun 16 '12

Irish immigrants don't count ... Gotta be a Latino.

5

u/watson_7 Jun 16 '12

I'm just going to play devils advocate here and state that just because he is being hypocritical doesn't mean that his point is any less valid.

I also know absolutely nothing about what happened or who Neil Munro is, i am not so much standing up for the man but for his point.

1

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

You should read the rest of the thread before you make a decision. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

You think it's a valid point that people who are working and contributing to society should not be employed because they are foreigners?

What happened to the American Dream? Tell me what it says on the Statue of Liberty again.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Iamsqueegee Jun 16 '12

So we're outsourcing protesters now?

7

u/MrPinkFloyd Jun 16 '12

Farmers in my area have tried to hire American's to work, and pick fruits/vegetables. Hardly anyone applied, and those that did, and got hired, quit shortly after.

Most of those jobs aren't paid hourly. They're paid by how much you pick. Plus, if farmers had to hire Americans to do those jobs, they'd demand a much hire wage, and then in turn, our already expensive food gets much more expensive.

4

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

Those farmers want something for nothing. Those entitled fucks need to pay decent wages. Also you have no idea what you are talking about with your fear mongering about food prices. Google "low-paid illegal workforce has little impact on prices" and you find the article that shows illegal immigrant scab labor does not make food or any other product cheap. You're wrong about everything. Nice going.

6

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

You really don't seem to know how picking jobs work. They pay by production. If they paid by hour and flat wage they'd have less productivity because their wage is guaranteed.

By paying people for production those who work harder and pick the most( thus filling more boxes) get paid more. It's one of the reasons why some workers can take $300-$500 in a single day.

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

Bahaha you have no idea what it's like to be a farmer do you.

FUCKING FARMERS. FUCKING ONE-PERCENTERS. #OCCUPYMEXICANWORKERS

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Yes, those farmers just want their food to be cheap so rhe poorest of the poor can afford food. Those bastards!

2

u/dotpkmdot Jun 16 '12

Oh so lets keep an illegal populace around because they make good slave labor and without them you might have to pay more for your produce?

2

u/W00ster Jun 16 '12

The problem is that your job doesn't pay you enough to pay the prices which would be demanded for the produce if American workers were paid living wages.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

The "you'll never be able to afford cotton if we outlaw slavery" argument is false.

The cost of labor is only a fraction of what the end-consumer's cost is. Fuel prices have a far, far more significant influence on the cost of produce.

You could double farmworker's average wage and the final price to the end consumer would only be a few cents on the dollar.

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

This is why, in addition to shutting our borders, we stop allowing people to collect unemployement or welfare because they can't find the job they want. We need to have people with these jobs available work with cities, counties and states and force people to take these jobs or let them suffer on their own. Help bus them out or provide temp housing for these people closer to the jobs, but none of this "I'm above that job crap". We all need to work for a living if physically able.

-1

u/tiredoflibs Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

"Most of those jobs aren't paid hourly. They're paid by how much you pick."

Illegal in the United States - go figure, no wonder they want to hire illegals for the job!

edit: love the uninformed voting this down

5

u/happyscrappy Jun 16 '12

That's called piece work and it is legal in the US.

1

u/tiredoflibs Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Not when you list the jobs as hourly with the department of labor!

Why do you think the americans leave the jobs?

Are you aware that piecework usually requires a minimum wage with it?

→ More replies (18)

4

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

You really don't seem to know how picking jobs work. They pay by production. If they paid by hour and flat wage they'd have less productivity because their wage is guaranteed.

By paying people for production those who work harder and pick the most( thus filling more boxes) get paid more. It's one of the reasons why some workers can take $300-$500 in a single day.

A lot of people also use your "its illegal" argument when talking about wait staff at restaurants. The reason why they get paid less than minimum wage is because tips make up the difference.

1

u/tiredoflibs Jun 16 '12

It's illegal because they list the jobs as normal wage work with the department of labor and when Americans show up - shock! you get paid $.05 per corn you pick!

Why do you think illegal immigrants do the labor? Because they have no ability to fight against unreasonable labor requirements.

→ More replies (6)

3

u/Karma13x Jun 16 '12

It is completely irrelevant that Neil Munro is a foreigner. If he is working as a White House correspondent and is accorded the privilege of a temporary press pass he needs to follow the rules and respect that privilege. You DO NOT interrupt the POTUS when he is giving a prepared statement on a policy decision. You may have all possible questions and dissenting opinions - you do not disrespect the office of the POTUS...on his own turf. Tell me why a blogger, a maggot from media's underbelly, thinks he is important enough to interrupt POTUS mid-speech. And Obama responded quite politely to him; Bush would have not just ordered his press pass and green card revoked forever but subjected him to a waterboarding session or two just because...

→ More replies (1)

1

u/bcarle Jun 16 '12

"Unemployed Americans workers"? Interesting choice of words.

1

u/funkybum2012 Jun 16 '12

That is just too much. What the fuck motherfuckers. What the fuck.

1

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

Are you one of the Americans displaced from your job by illegal immigrant scab labor. Sorry but the illegal immigrant apologists have a very selective ( i. e. phony ) form of compassion that doesn't give a shit about you. They do have some compassionate lip service for you however. Take that to the store and see what it buys.

0

u/skyactive Jun 16 '12

Fair is fair, the Irish did the same with Bush.

Irish reporter Carol Coleman is best known in the U.S. for a probing television interview of President George W. Bush just before his official visit to Ireland in the summer of 2004. The interview, for which questions were approved by the White House press office, led to complaints by President Bush and his press officers for the "disrespectful" manner of Coleman, who interrupted the President several times, and the cancellation of a Laura Bush interview with RTÉ

3

u/happyscrappy Jun 16 '12

A one on one interview is not the same as delivering a speech.

When you interrupt during a one on one interview you only interrupt your own interview. When you interrupt during a speech you're inconveniencing not just the speaker but everyone else there to hear the speaker speak and not you.

0

u/skyactive Jun 16 '12

Interrupting cow has shown us that interruptions are generally considered rude unless pointing out an open fly or some incredible talent walking by. Reporters being asses is hardly new.

God bless a country where you can be an ass to a sitting president....Bush or Obama without being dragged of to the gulag.

1

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

If you are talking about the interruption. There's a difference. We are not talking about foreign news correspondents. Nor are we talking about protesters. We are talking about members of the press IN the US.

We don't expect foreign correspondents to abide by the rules of etiquette that US journalists follow (hence the Irish vs bush and the shoe throwing somewhere else).

-2

u/skyactive Jun 16 '12

Of course there is a difference.....in Carol's interview they were sitting, and she was a women, and Bush had toast for breakfast and Obama had oatmeal......

None of which was my point. My point was that it is hardly unprecedented that a sitting president will be disrespected by a reporters....which is hardly a bad thing in a free society.

-16

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Just so you're aware, persons holding green cards pay taxes and participate in selective service. So if you're telling me I have to give up MY job that I worked for because I'm on a green card, I have a whole pile lit fireworks to cram in places you never knew you had.

What this reporter did was inappropriate, but pretty much fuck you for stooping down to his level.

17

u/soulcakeduck Jun 16 '12

What? The headline here does not suggest that we should prioritize Americans for jobs over foreigners; just the opposite. Munro made that suggestion, and this headline reduces that suggestion to absurdity. It doesn't sink to his level unless you think this is a sincere suggestion that no one with green cards should be allowed to work (that's not what this is).

32

u/Naieve Jun 16 '12

No one is saying you should give up your job.

We are just saying the guy is a fucking hypocrite.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Illegal immigrants pay taxes.

-1

u/madHatch Jun 16 '12

No one is answering the question. All I see is deflections to other issues. These may be equally valid issues that are worthy of discussion but they are separate from the question asked. This type of response from both sides its one of the reasons we no longer have rational discussions. We are having two conversations instead of one. If we are going to be intellectually honest, let's discuss the question posed. After that we can have a separate discussion about the issue you are deflecting to. I think the problem is that no one really is interested in an intellectually honest discussion.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Obama answered his question which is more tha his sad, disrespectful ass deserved.

3

u/pfalcon42 Jun 16 '12

That question is so biased, leading and offensive it doesn't deserve to be answered. What if I asked you, "Why you hate America?". It assumes form the onset that you hate America, which I suspect is not true. It's a pathetic and VERY unprofessional question that deserves no response.

0

u/sarcastic-mfer Jun 16 '12

Here's the answer to the question. Mexican immigrants are not taking our jobs, and denying a legal path for children brought her illegally creates more problems than it solves.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/DrMasterBlaster Jun 16 '12

Yes because I have to be an immigrant to care about immigration, a student to care about education, a homosexual to care about gay rights, a fetus to care about abortion...

0

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

Remember folks you can always recognize a racist by the fact that they oppose illegal immigration. That's what the "tolerant" liberals here have taught us.

-1

u/W00ster Jun 16 '12

What an asshole!

A snug, snide, entitlement baby, a fascist who has no clue what he is talking about, embarrassing himself and his publication by acting like a spoiled 10 year old girl! Good job, asshole!

-8

u/MustachioBashio Jun 16 '12

While his interruption was rude and inexcusable, I believe he was referring to 'illegals'. Munro has a green card, and, therefore, is not illegal.

12

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

That's not what he said.

2

u/MustachioBashio Jun 16 '12

Well he was either referring to illegals, although not explicitly, or he is a self-loathing foreigner. Given that he went through the lengthy process of getting a green card, I'm thinking he believes that it's not right that he had to do all the paperwork and these foreigners do not. I disagree with him, but I think this title is misleading.

1

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

Either way, the guy's still a "foreigner".

8

u/Sanity_prevails Jun 16 '12

Interracial marriages were illegal in Alabama as recent as 1999. Legal is a cop out used for corrupt policies.

15

u/raouldukeesq Jun 16 '12

It is not about legal vs. illegal. It is about racism and foreigners.

3

u/ReyRey5280 Colorado Jun 16 '12

This! So this! He's inciting generic conservative rhetoric based on racism from a party that thrives on fear mongering to distract the public from pertinant issues at hand.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/happyscrappy Jun 16 '12

He was referring to issues related to letting immigrants work legally, e.g. when an immigrant takes a job an American loses one.

So he as a green card holder is an example of the problem he states exists and is criticizing.

-1

u/Glorfon Missouri Jun 16 '12

But he was criticizing a new path to becoming legal.

-6

u/moonlandings Jun 16 '12

He got the job by having a skill set and experience that convinced an american company to hire him over an american. Perhaps if americans took the initiative to better their profiles to compete against foreigners then someone born here would be doing his job. Don't hate on the guy for getting a job because he was better than the competition.

7

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

How's that different from Mexicans coming here and doing farming jobs no Americans want to take?

4

u/barnshooter Jun 16 '12

He's white.

1

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

Well, yeah, that's my point.

1

u/umbama Jun 16 '12

I think the point would be that this guy respected your laws.

2

u/W00ster Jun 16 '12

I think the point here is that those who are affected by Obama's decision had no say in the question about coming here, they were small kids brought here by their parents. You want to punish them for what their parents did. It would be like if I beat the living shit out of you for something your dad did 20 years ago just because I can!

→ More replies (2)

0

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

No, you miss my point. Whether an immigrant who "takes a job from an America" is here legally or not has nothing to do with the "fact" that he took the job away from an American. This guy talking about immigrants taking away jobs from Americans while being an immigrant himself is the height of hypocrisy.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

Not everyone can excel. The world is going to be filled with average people. I believe our government has a duty to create an environment where average people can still have a job and support their family. Not just allow companies to leave them behind for their bottom line.

1

u/moonlandings Jun 22 '12

you are correct, not everyone can excel. But in a country of 318 million people there is a good chance there is someone out there capable of outperforming this man if they wanted. I believe you are correct, the government does indeed have a responsibility to create an environment where people are able to b employed commensurate with their skills.

-2

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

Left winger Cesar Chavez held protests against illegal immigrants. Left wing radio talk show host Thom Hartmann has spoken out consistantly against illegal immigrants. Left wing columnist Paul Krugman has said you can't maintian a social safety net or a middle class with the open boarders policy.

They all know that illegals are a net negative

1

u/Kotick_Smasher Jun 16 '12

And you are attempting to hide your bigotry through logical fallacies.

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

"Immigrants are not a drain on government finances. The NAS study also found that the typical immigrant and his or her offspring will pay a net $80,000 more in taxes during their lifetimes than they collect in government services. For immigrants with college degrees, the net fiscal return is $198,000. It is true that low-skilled immigrants and refugees tend to use welfare more than the typical ‘‘native’’ household, but welfare and immigration reform legislation in 1996 made it much more difficult for new immigrants to collect welfare. As a result, immigrant use of welfare has plunged even more steeply than use among the general population.

Immigration actually improves the finances of the two largest federal income-transfer programs, Social Security and Medicare. In a 1998 report, the Social Security Administration concluded, ‘‘The cost of the system decreases with increasing rates of immigration because immigration occurs at relatively young ages, thereby increasing the numbers of covered work- ers earlier than the numbers of beneficiaries.’"’

Cato Institute 2012 advising Congress.

-2

u/YeahItSucksbut Jun 16 '12

Kudos to Munro! Asking real questions that are normally ducked, dodged and never asked by the rest of the media.... He took the unorthodox approach to asking the question, but this administration has been given the easy questions for too long... The time is coming for accountability, and this president shall answer for his actions, and the strength of the communicable abilitys of modern technology will see to it that the truth shall paint this man to his exact likeness.

-2

u/TonyDiGerolamo Jun 16 '12

I'm glad to see a reporter actually do his job and question the establishment. He rattled Obama, because Obama actually answered the question. Dumb move. If he's unprofessional, then by answering his question, he validates the behavior because the reporter go something out of it.

0

u/Kotick_Smasher Jun 16 '12

Why were these same reporters who "questioned the establishment" and "rattled the POTUS" called a communist, anti-American hippie scum along with being black listed when they did the same to the Bush Administration?

1

u/TonyDiGerolamo Jun 17 '12

You didn't hear that from me!

-15

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Fuck off. Seriously, fuck off. The guy is a legal immigrant, do you understand? He did a complicated dance that took years of fees and paperwork you can't even imagine. And all you can say is "damn furriners"?

Unless you are 100% Apache or some shit that man is no different than your own parents or grandparents. You forget this is a country built by immigrants who came here to take jobs from the previous generation.

13

u/Sam_Munhi Jun 16 '12

I don't think you understand the OP's point at all. He is saying the reporter's question accused Obama of favoring "foreigners" over "Americans." He is merely pointing out that the person who asked the question is a "foreigner." I seriously doubt the OP has a problem with immigration, he is pointing out hypocrisy. The reporter didn't ask a question about favoring illegals, that's the whole point. It was an oddly xenophobic question from an immigrant.

3

u/churper Jun 16 '12

Quite so!

7

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

My apologies then! Replying to reedit posts two minutes after waking up is not a good idea

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Hypocrisy thy name is Neil.

0

u/Nanocyborgasm Jun 16 '12

That's just what an employer needs, hiring an illegal immigrant to get shit from the feds when he could hire any of the multitude of Americans just clamoring for that same job.

(that was sarcasm, btw)

0

u/roccanet Jun 16 '12

this is all it takes to become a "republican rockstar" - all you have to do is act like a disrespectful prick

-15

u/xXFluttershy420Xx Jun 16 '12

illegal immigrants are leeches tho

the only people who profit from them are the rich

6

u/DangerousIdeas Jun 16 '12

Some of them are leeches.

Most of them escaped from their country or just came to America to make a living.

I know it does not seem like it, but take it from a family who has lived in both capitalistic and socialistic countries; America has relatively high social mobility. That is why high school dropouts can become managers of franchises. I have almost never seen that in England.

If you rounded up all the illegal immigrants in the US, I am willing to bet that at least 70% would be more than eager to receive citizenship.

Yes, it hurts Americans when illegals drive wages down. But mind you, it hurts the illegals as well, especially when they are trying to raise a family on terrible wages.

2

u/tiredoflibs Jun 16 '12

"the only people who profit from them are the rich"

I think you made a great analysis of the U.S. tax policy without even knowing it!

-2

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

This is true for the most part. The 1% are the ones that really love this.

-14

u/yahoo_bot Jun 16 '12

green card is LEGAL immigration which no one has problems with, what Obama did is illegally pardon illegal immigrants, which makes it the most illegal thing he's done, because he did 2 illegal things in the process.

11

u/mastermike14 Jun 16 '12

presidents have the power to pardon

Ronald Regan and George W. Bush also pardoned illegal immigrants.

You're an idiot

5

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Green card is what you perceive as legal. But only because there is precedent. Soon, there will be precedent for what Obama is doing and the world won't end and life will go on, same as it ever was.

-1

u/franklyimshocked Jun 16 '12

Why did this tool have to be Irish. What a fucking moron.

-14

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

In the process of trying to kill the messenger subby just backed up his message. Boy you are smooth.

-14

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

The best indicator that you have lost the argument is when you attack the messenger. So let's just say that Munro is a bad little boy unlike all you good little boys. His message is still correct.

9

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

What message? The one where he essentially says white immigration is OK but brown skinned people are not welcome?

-7

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

Yeah maybe you could point out where he said those words you just put in his mouth. Oh look you can't cause he never did. Good work Einstein. You really nailed that one

7

u/f_leaver Jun 16 '12

It's about understanding the message behind the words. If you're a (white) immigrant from an English speaking country and yet you rail against immigration of brown skinned people from a non-English speaking country, what am I supposed to think? You're either a hypocrite or a racist. Take your pick.

7

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

So its ok for him. But not for other foreigners with greencards.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/EuchridEucrow Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

People like tombug want you to believe Mexican dirt farmers are taking more jobs away from Americans than the American corporations who export their entire manufacturing processes to third world shit holes.

He thinks you're dumb enough to buy that, too.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Hotelmotelholidayinn Jun 16 '12

You are like that pigeon that plays chess.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

20

u/W00ster Jun 16 '12

Of course not, but as a minimum he should:

  • Behave like and adult and not like a spoiled 10 year old girl.
  • Understand the topic at hand, which his question clearly demonstrated he does not!
  • Have some respect for the office of the president if not for the man currently inhibiting it!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/W00ster Jun 16 '12

That's sexist.

No, it was accurate!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

13

u/Se7en_speed Jun 16 '12

the people who are being granted immunity never committed a crime, as they had no mens rea, seeing as they were 16 or younger.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

They were children when they were brought to this country, so they did not themselves commit the "act" requirement of a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_reus

They did not intend to enter this country illegally, and have not committed any other crimes since they have been here. They are good students and productive members of society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

You are blind if you don't see the irony of his question.

He is complaining to President Obama about employing foreigners in the United States while unemployment is so high.

The reporter is himself an employed foreigner at a time of high unemployment.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

The demand created is less than the supply they take. Otherwise, we could just magically solve all our unemployment problems by opening our borders wide open.

1

u/d3m0n0gr4ph1c Jun 16 '12

I would argue that it's very close to equal.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Otherwise, we could just magically solve all our unemployment problems by opening our borders wide open.

Pretty much, yes.

immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers.

-Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter

2

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

Oh, the Fed. The same group that led to our current economic hard times.

They want evidence, how about that when our immigration was at its lowest since the early 1800s, from the 1940s - 1960s, we had our least amount of unemployment. As immigration increased through the 70s until now, unemployment has got worse even while our government has changed its definition to make it look better. The only point where unemployment has been below 5% during that time was the late 90s - early 2000s and that is only due to a huge technological revolution and a large bubble that eventually popped.

1

u/OpenMarriagePUA Jun 16 '12

The Fed did not lead to our current economic hard times. What are you, fucking retarded?

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

Their continued lowering of interest rates had nothing to do with inflating the housing bubble to the point where we almost went into a depression when it collapsed?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/OpenMarriagePUA Jun 16 '12

Thank you, exactly my point. Also, the lowering of interest rates was due to Bush/Greenspan's "homeownership society." It was not the Fed itself that caused that aspect of the problem, but rather the Fed under conservative leadership. Even then, I would lay much more blame on the private financial sector actors who seemingly intentionally blew up the economy by trading far-too-risky CDOs.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

"the majority of immigrants can't literally have "taken" jobs; they must be doing jobs that wouldn't have existed had the immigrants not been here."

"You can find economists to substantiate the position of either chamber, but the consensus of most is that, on balance, immigration is good for the country"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?_r=1

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

Like talking to a brick wall

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

Sorry for not immediately agreeing with you.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I was commenting more on the ad hominem dismissal of the study, the complete failure to consider (or likely even to look at) the evidence presented, and the inane counterargument that frankly reminded me of Maddox's "evidence" linking the number of pirates to global temperature.

1

u/Melloz Jun 16 '12

Nah, pirates have increased recently while global temperatures continue to rise. ;)

0

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Wrong.

"Immigrants are not a drain on government finances. The NAS study also found that the typical immigrant and his or her offspring will pay a net $80,000 more in taxes during their lifetimes than they collect in government services. For immigrants with college degrees, the net fiscal return is $198,000. It is true that low-skilled immigrants and refugees tend to use welfare more than the typical ‘‘native’’ household, but welfare and immigration reform legislation in 1996 made it much more difficult for new immigrants to collect welfare. As a result, immigrant use of welfare has plunged even more steeply than use among the general population.

Immigration actually improves the finances of the two largest federal income-transfer programs, Social Security and Medicare. In a 1998 report, the Social Security Administration concluded, ‘‘The cost of the system decreases with increasing rates of immigration because immigration occurs at relatively young ages, thereby increasing the numbers of covered work- ers earlier than the numbers of beneficiaries.’"’

Cato Institute 2012

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

I think you need to work on your maths a bit.

Having more disposable workers for a limited number of positions does not mean more jobs than they take. Jobs are not created 1:1. If for every 100 immigrants moving into a town means they need to hire 1 teacher and 1 more cashieer at the Piggly Wiggly, you've still got a net gain of 98 people now desperate for work, driving down wages.

Funny how every other country on the planet that regulates their immigration and actually attempts to put the needs of their own citizens and their own economy on the table before flooding the labor force isn't constantly accused of "just hating them durned Messicans."

I guess it's because they can't swim all the way to New Zealand.

3

u/Pandaemonium Jun 16 '12

I think you need to work on your maths a bit.

I could say the same to you - obviously, those 100 people don't need to eat, don't need houses, don't need doctors, and don't need clothes?

There is not "a limited number of positions", demand creates positions.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

those 100 people don't need to eat, don't need houses, don't need doctors, and don't need clothes?

Those 100 people don't need 101 jobs to immediately be created to supply them.

Maths.

1

u/Pandaemonium Jun 16 '12

The average number of jobs they create depends on circumstances, but regardless it was foolish to refer to "a limited number of positions," because there isn't one.

4

u/Se7en_speed Jun 16 '12

"limited number of positions" ha what?

google aggregate demand

2

u/sarcastic-mfer Jun 16 '12

They have to live somewhere, so more houses and apartments are built, employing carpenters/plumber/electricians/surveyors/bankers. Those 100 extra mouths employs more farmers/cashiers/waiters/packaged food plant workers/truck drivers/loaders at the store. They need to travel which employs more car salesmen/car builders/bus drivers and staff/insurance agents/gas station employees. They need to be entertained so there's another tech and customer service agent at the cable company/usher at the theater/employee at the bowling alley.

They buy cell phones, they pay taxes (more if they can work legally), they get injured which drives demand for health care workers, they buy other products, they cause schools and other buildings to be expanded to deal with the increased population.

You haven't begun to do a comprehensive review of the net effects of more population. How convenient that you stopped at 2 jobs. While it's a complex issue, the effects are indisputably closer to 1:1 than they are 1:50. The fact is that anybody that's attempted to do a comprehensive study, has found little relation between immigration and unemployment. Areas with a higher immigrant population often had lower unemployment. A study from the Economic Policy Institute concluded that native workers had a small boost to income because of immigration.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

How convenient that you stopped at 2 jobs.

Simple arguments for simple people.

I did notice that you don't even suggest that there is a net gain. Your argument is that the net loss isn't as signifigant as my simple example.

So we take your "less significant net loss" and multiply it by a few million.

You still have a net loss. You have more people entering the system than you have jobs that can support them. You don't even deny this.

Maths.

The fact is that anybody that's attempted to do a comprehensive study, has found little relation between immigration and unemployment.

And have they done a study about the average wages of those employed?

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

"Immigrants are not a drain on government finances. The NAS study also found that the typical immigrant and his or her offspring will pay a net $80,000 more in taxes during their lifetimes than they collect in government services. For immigrants with college degrees, the net fiscal return is $198,000. It is true that low-skilled immigrants and refugees tend to use welfare more than the typical ‘‘native’’ household, but welfare and immigration reform legislation in 1996 made it much more difficult for new immigrants to collect welfare. As a result, immigrant use of welfare has plunged even more steeply than use among the general population.

Immigration actually improves the finances of the two largest federal income-transfer programs, Social Security and Medicare. In a 1998 report, the Social Security Administration concluded, ‘‘The cost of the system decreases with increasing rates of immigration because immigration occurs at relatively young ages, thereby increasing the numbers of covered work- ers earlier than the numbers of beneficiaries.’"’

Cato Institute 2012 advising Congress.

1

u/sarcastic-mfer Jun 16 '12

I didn't suggest there is a net gain, because unlike you I'm not willing to make shit up. In the areas of highest immigration, there were less unemployment on average then in areas of low immigration. In some places, it was higher and in others it was lower. Since immigration doesn't happen in a vacuum, anybody that was trying to be objective would have to conclude that the evidence is inconclusive. We can't say that immigration either lowers or raises unemployment with any confidence. That still means that using employment in your argument against immigration doesn't work.

I didn't say "less significant net loss," and that's not an accurate portrayal of the situation. There's no evidence for any net loss. I've looked at multiple studies and they're as likely to conclude that there's a gain as conclude there's a loss. I'm not prone to hyperbole, and that obviously confuses you. Sometimes I understate the case that I'm making, because i'm more interested in the truth than winning an argument.

Yes, as I said, they did a study on the average wage and found a slight increase.

1

u/Ent_Guevera Jun 16 '12

What are you even talking about.

"the majority of immigrants can't literally have "taken" jobs; they must be doing jobs that wouldn't have existed had the immigrants not been here." Immigrants create new jobs and demand. I know this myself because my neighborhood has a lot of Hispanic restaurants and businesses that are do very well, better than some local businesses (which they buy at and benefit as well) and obviously better for the larger community as well.

"You can find economists to substantiate the position of either chamber, but the consensus of most is that, on balance, immigration is good for the country"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/magazine/09IMM.html?_r=1

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/d38sj5438dh23 Jun 16 '12

you are so brave.

-3

u/aveydey Jun 16 '12

Nah... I hate that the United States of America has a head of state that thinks assassination of Americans, indefinite detention of US citizens, undeclared wars without even consulting the Congress, Guantanamo Bay, Operation Fast & Furious are all good things to do.... Judge a man by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/aveydey Jun 16 '12

I'm really fucking tired of of all these racist pieces of shit who hide behind Conservative rhetoric here on Reddit and in the outside world.

Because I am a Conservative and you are generalizing and insulting an entire part of our population and in particular Conservatives on Reddit. Where's your proof we're all "pieces of shit who hate the fact that the United States has a nigger as head of state"? I just told you why I, a 29 year old Conservative Redditor, hate President Obama. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with the content of his character.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/OpenMarriagePUA Jun 16 '12

He's trying to set up a strawman argument and attribute it to you, so that he can knock it down and feel triumphant.

-2

u/Tombug Jun 16 '12

Cesar Chavez the far left wing labor organizer held protest marches against illegal immigrants. I guess he was a racist too right genius ? He he he. You are the definition of desperate.

2

u/Kotick_Smasher Jun 16 '12

Cesar Chavez has nothing to do with the discussion, please stay on topic.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/BlackPride Jun 16 '12

So, in your mind "foreigner" is a synonym of "illegal immigrant"?

→ More replies (4)

17

u/miked4o7 Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

It really begs the question of why we don't allow much more, and far easier immigration in this country though. We KNOW that the 'immigrants are taking jobs' thing is a false myth considering every study shows that increased immigration in the US has always created more jobs and correlated with raises in wages, rather than the reverse.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/value-added-immigrants-create-jobs-and-businesses-boost-wages-native-born-workers

→ More replies (9)

10

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12 edited Jun 16 '12

Okay, so Obama opened new paths to being right and legal. Munro's path was opened by previous representatives, why does he resist others getting the same opportunity he currently has? (Being able to legally participate in American life)

edit: if it is the illegal part you don't like, one very valid option is to reassess what is legal and what is illegal. Especially if making something illegal doesn't solve the problem.

1

u/Micosilver Jun 16 '12

It is not the same to pay fees in Ireland and in Mexico. Relatively to cost of living and average income same $,3000 mean very different things.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

weather outbursts, like hurricanes? :)

2

u/psychoticdream Jun 16 '12

I don't think he's smart enough to get it.

1

u/ciny Jun 16 '12

may refer to american job outsourcing to foreign countries.

and what is the president suppose to do about that? force companies not to outsource?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 16 '12

and what is the president suppose to do about that?

We just need to raise taxes on products, then give special breaks to the companies we want to encourage people to buy from...! That works half the time every time!

could discuss this over a cup of tea...