Musk Critics Including Laura Loomer Claim Censorship on X, Loss of X Badges

[u/Doctor_Byronic]

https://www.cf.org/news/musk-critics-including-laura-loomer-claim-censorship-on-x-loss-of-x-badges/

[u/DownrightCaterpillar]

That's explicitly what he's saying, you don't even have to read into it. He said this a year ago and still believes it today: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1728140125299720560

We should greatly increase legal immigration of anyone who is hard-working, honest and loves America. Every such person is an asset to the country. But massive illegal immigration of people we know nothing about is insane.

Now, for the reality of "hard-working" and "honest" people (do we test for honesty before granting work visa? No, we don't.):

Under the strictest set of assumptions, in which all costs of public education fall on the parents of those being educated and in which the cost of public goods are shared across the population equally, first generation independent person units are estimated to be the most costly relative to second and third-plus generation units. For the 2011-2013 period, first generation independent person units incurred a net cost on average of $1,600 per unit per year, compared to a net benefit of $1,700 for second generation independent person units and $1,300 for third-plus generation units.

So, the 1st generation (i.e. the new immigrants Elon wants to bring over) are a net loss for local and state governments, largely because of the cost of educating their children. And they're disproportionately likely to have children.

Page 20

Those arriving after age 21 also typically do not add to the largest state and local cost of immigration—the cost of public education in the receiving country—although their children will.

Page 284

When a population is disproportionately of working ages, and therefore paying taxes and creating a positive fiscal impact, they are also likely to be disproportionately parents of children creating a fiscal negative, primarily in the form of public education costs. As shown below, this demographic characterization accurately describes first generation immigrants for the 1994-2013 period.

Page 450

Sometimes key pieces of information cannot be gleaned from household surveys. An example, used in the estimation of state and local fiscal impacts, is the cost of bilingual education and of educating students for whom English is a second language (not necessarily in a bilingual education program). The costs of such programs cannot be estimated from a household survey because they are incurred by schools, not parents.

So apparently, immigrant children are more expensive to educate than American children, but we don't know how much. 😬😬😬 So this cost analysis also doesn't account for the fact that the education (the largest public expenditure) is higher for immigrant kids. Thus meaning that the above net cost/profit analysis (1st gen: -1,600, 2nd gen +1,700, 3rd gen: + 1300) is wrong for the 1st gen; necessarily they are more expensive due to ESL costs.

I also wonder where they're getting their numbers for educational costs; for example, here's what Table 9-5 on page 401 says for California:

TABLE 9-5 State and Local Expenditures per Independent Person Unit (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013
Immigrant Generation Difference: First California: $17,650

This represents pure cost, not net cost or profit. Here is what we annually spend in California, per pupil, for one public school student: $19,548. California's state and local share of that is ~90.5% (since a bit less than 10% of it is funded by the federal govt). How on earth California spends ~$16k per person, including all costs, yet each person costs only about $3,500 more than that, is inexplicable.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

So it costs money to educate children who will likely serve the nation’s interest extraordinarily well? Where is the issue?

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

who will likely serve the nation’s interest extraordinarily well? Where is the issue? 

The issue is the lie that you're spreading. Most of these 2nd generation immigrant households barely erase the debt that they imposed on society as children. And when you realize that the estimates we have don't account for the extra cost of providing them ESL classes, you'll realize that they don't even cover the costs of their own education.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

Congratulations for discovering that educating new workers costs money.

People over the course of their life obviously build more wealth and contribute more to society than any ESL education costs. You’re also acting like the HB1 immigrants somehow don’t already speak English. I live in a town where a significant part of the population are second generation Indian children. Their parents knew at least some English when they got here and their children are all fluent and barely needed ESL. The majority of them are at good universities and on their way to contributing to society. The cost of educating them in English was virtually zero. Their parents have to know English to work here. How the hell are you working at an American company at a high level and not know English? It doesn’t exist. Their children are taught English by the parents and if they need supplementary ESL classes, it will only be necessary for a year or two.

[u/GeorgeWashingfun → u/Running_Gamer]

The point is we've already got plenty of American citizens we could spend that money on educating. We don't need to import a bunch of foreigners that destroy our culture.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/GeorgeWashingfun]

And how do foreigners necessarily destroy our culture? Where are all these immigrants destroying our culture with their hard work and overwhelming academic and professional success? Does anyone ever complain about east or south Asian immigrants destroying our culture? Chinese, Korean, and Japanese people have been a part of America for a long time now. They’ve contributed to the country greatly and our culture is still intact. If we were talking about importing exclusively extremist Muslims, I would agree with you. But east and south Asian immigrants have historically not threatened the country at all.

And of course we should invest in Americans first. But right now, the left has supported a culture of mediocrity and DEI for so long that our education in this country is abysmal. And it doesn’t help with MAGA’s hatred for college despite its necessity for success in the white collar world. Since we don’t have enough educated people right now because the left loves DEI and conservatives abandoned our institutions of meritocracy, we have shitty gender theory graduates contributing no skills to the world and immigrants with those skills who are willing to contribute them and add to our society. Why would America not jump at the opportunity to correct our deficiencies while healing the wound caused by the abuse of our country’s institutions of meritocracy and social mobility?

[u/GeorgeWashingfun → u/Running_Gamer]

[ Removed by Reddit ]

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

Congratulations for discovering that educating new workers costs money. People over the course of their life obviously build more wealth and contribute more to society than any ESL education costs.

Prove it. And the cost here is the whole cost they impose on society, not just the ESL costs. I've already established that, until the 3rd generation, immigrants don't profit society significantly, and that those purported profits are exaggerated by not accounting for ESL education. I'll again quote the conclusion of the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (touted by Trump in a 2017 speech):

Page 420

Under the strictest set of assumptions, in which all costs of public education fall on the parents of those being educated and in which the cost of public goods are shared across the population equally, first generation independent person units are estimated to be the most costly relative to second and third-plus generation units. For the 2011-2013 period, first generation independent person units incurred a net cost on average of $1,600 per unit per year, compared to a net benefit of $1,700 for second generation independent person units and $1,300 for third-plus generation units.

Page 450

Sometimes key pieces of information cannot be gleaned from household surveys. An example, used in the estimation of state and local fiscal impacts, is the cost of bilingual education and of educating students for whom English is a second language (not necessarily in a bilingual education program). The costs of such programs cannot be estimated from a household survey because they are incurred by schools, not parents.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

Lmao whatever study you’re citing is 100% wrong. You cannot estimate the aggregate “net-costs” (whatever that might mean) of a group living in the US three generations down the line. Do you have a Time Machine?

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

"Whatever study you're citing" is the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. It's the gold-standard study on this topic, you can go read its authors as I've already provided a link. The reason is not only because of the contributors, but also because the NAS is about 90% government-funded, meaning the kinds of bias you can find from industry-funded studies such as are produced by groups like the Cato Institute are less present. I'd recommend you at least read Chapter 9, it's not too daunting, and you'll gain a great deal of insight into how they calculate their numbers.

As to your claim about a Time Machine, the net costs are calculated off of data from past years, it's not about predicting the future.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

MUH GOLD STANDARD

Except you can’t make the assumption that the costs remain fixed over time. You also can’t measure the costs of immigration based on dollars alone. The study falls into the economist trap that they think they can quantify the costs of everything. How the hell can you calculate the costs of someone’s entire life three generations down the line? It’s not possible.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

How the hell can you calculate the costs of someone’s entire life three generations down the line? It’s not possible.

It's kind of funny that you said this, let's see where our conversation began:

So it costs money to educate children who will likely serve the nation’s interest extraordinarily well?

How exactly did you calculate this? Or in other words, why do you think it's true? Explain without anecdotes.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

I can calculate this because you just calculate the cost of hiring a teacher and the resources needed to fund an ESL class. If the class is successful, you’ve educated people who will now contribute many times the cost of the ESL class into society. Fair assumption to make, considering that an ESL’s class’s costs are spread among multiple people over the course of many years.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

Also, I feel this should be addressed:

You’re also acting like the HB1 immigrants somehow don’t already speak English. I live in a town where a significant part of the population are second generation Indian children. Their parents knew at least some English when they got here and their children are all fluent and barely needed ESL. The majority of them are at good universities and on their way to contributing to society. The cost of educating them in English was virtually zero. Their parents have to know English to work here. How the hell are you working at an American company at a high level and not know English? It doesn’t exist.

They're not working at a high level lol. I think you've genuinely misunderstood this issue, probably due to being too emotionally invested in it. You're thinking about those on something like an O visa. Please stop thinking about personal acquaintances, the lowest form of evidence, and instead look here for example: https://x.com/Butters09016449/status/1872393436407767065

This is just a small snapshot of the jobs which H1-B visa holders can receive. "Associate Analyst," "Associate QA Engineer" (lol) these are recent college grad jobs at best. You're not working at a "high level" at all. And you can definitely function on a subpar level of English when your department is filled by people from exactly the same country as you.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

A college grad level job is not working at a high level? You’d think that having the equivalent of a four year degree without the country having to invest in educating you would be considered good for the country.

You don’t know how the real world works. Working at an American company without speaking at least semi fluent English is borderline impossible. Nobody will hire you because you won’t be able to be communicated with during the interview stage. You’re just making things up.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

Lmao I also just looked at your twitter link and it’s delusional. It calls those jobs “low paying” when the cheapest salary is 73k… you good? Thats low paying? You’re out of your mind.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

It calls those jobs “low paying” when the cheapest salary is 73k… you good? Thats low paying? You’re out of your mind.

You have to account for cost of living. There are 2 positions listed for Fremont, CA and they both pay $85k. That's great, except it's in Fremont. 1-bedroom apartments cost at least $1.9k-3.3k/month there. And since you're claiming these are great salaries, surely the lofty "Associate Analyst" will spring for a nice apartment, maybe $2.6/month or more. So that's $31k per year not including utilities. That is exorbitant and about half of their take-home salary after income tax.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

“MUH COST OF LIVING” is the greatest lie ever told to Americans who want to claim that they are perpetually poor and therefore virtuous. It allows you to claim the virtue of someone who is struggling to get by while you get to reap the rewards of actually being well off. Nobody in America is struggling to get by on a salary of over $70k. My first position was 50k a few years ago in NYC and me and my friends were just fine. You live with roommates and be smart about your spending. Having a budget is normal responsible spending, not poverty. After a year I was promoted as one of the top performers and bumped to an 80k salary. I’m a straight white man. Anyone who argues against HB1 visas is someone who thinks “MAGA” means “DEI for white people.” No. It means you earn your spot in this country. If you get beat out by someone who grew up in the third world, that’s an indictment of you and your mediocrity, not them. America’s potential shouldn’t have to suffer because you’re not willing to step up and do the job.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

1. Resorting to anecdotes again. Very emotional.
2. Calling a salary calculator and an apartment listing site "the greatest lie ever told to Americans." Can I even call this emotional? It's just ignoring reality.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

“Salary calculator 🤓☝️” if 70k is poverty level, can you claim social welfare benefits on a 70k salary?

[u/PixieDustFairies → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

Why not make it so that you have to pay tuition for public schools if you're an immigrant to offset the costs? They shouldn't be getting free stuff without contributing to the system, and we've made out of state college students pay more as well.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/PixieDustFairies]

Why not make it so that you have to pay tuition for public schools if you're an immigrant to offset the costs? They shouldn't be getting free stuff without contributing to the system, and we've made out of state college students pay more as well.

"Pay more" and "pay for it" are two different things. As mentioned, the cost of educating a public school student in California (for example) is over $17k per year, per student. Considering the average 1st gen immigrant family has around 1 child:

Page 396

First generation independent persons have an average of 0.52 children per unit

That means they'll, on average, pay $17k/year. There's no way on earth that even above-average income immigrant households can shoulder that burden every year. Imagine, after income tax, paying for that. It's impossible even for regular American families. The solution is to do what you said, force them to pay for all of it, and turn away immigrants with trailing children. So that immigrants who are already in the US can be forced to pay if they have children enrolled in schools, and we can keep out immigrants who are already seeking to impose this burden on us.

For those who are thinking "but what about immigrants who can pay," you don't know they can pay. If you have money in your bank account today, you can lose it tomorrow for a variety of reasons. Or have a family member transfer money into your account, US government checks the amount, then you transfer it back after being audited. Thus pretending to be able to support your kid's education even if you can't. Alternatively, if you have the income to support a public school education, you can lose that job (and immigrants have far less job security than natives). There is truly no reason to pay for their kids. And of course we have no idea the reliability of credit agencies in other countries. And some countries, like Japan, don't even have 3rd party credit agencies; your bank serves as your credit agency and its data is not necessarily intended for consumption by those outside the bank.

Even if they're paying the financial costs, the negative impact of larger class sizes is one of the uncontested truths of education, mainly because of disruptive children. For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0883035506000607

For example, the synthesis of meta-analyses indicated that the presence of disruptive students (even one of them) in a class has the effect of decreasing achievement by 0.79—which is enormous. When I ask teachers if they would choose between a class size of 15 when I choose the students, or a reduction of 5 from their current class and they choose the students, they nearly always prefer the latter. For many teachers, it is the presence of a few disruptive students that often lead them to desiring smaller classes. There is a question also about the optimal class size; although there seems to be some ‘‘magic’’ in the literature and among policy makers around a class size of 15. When asked in a survey as to the optimal class size, New Zealand secondary teachers claimed that 16 was optimal for Year 13 (the final year of school), 19 for Year 12, 21 for Year 11, and 23 for Years 9–10 (which is not that different from the actual class sizes in NZ secondary schools).

Obviously, the larger the class size, the greater the potential for disruptive students. Simple as. Why introduce more students, thus diluting the quality of education? We already have a staffing problem with public school teachers, why make it worse?