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/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. 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/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]

But they also consume the cost of the rest of public education as well. Their parents need to pay more money back over their lifetime to compensate for the cost of educating their children, which is more expensive than that of a native. And the reality is 1st gen immigrants don't make more money than natives, yet have more expensive children.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

What are you talking about? Yes. It costs money to educate people. It also costs more money educate special ed kids who end up being minimum wage workers their entire lives. It also costs money to educate kids who end up dropping out and becoming gang members. Should we not provide education in low income areas? Should we not provide education to the mentally disabled?

Who cares if it’s more expensive, sometimes, to educate immigrant children when those children (who are usually citizens anyway so it shouldn’t matter) still end up contributing to society in just as much?

Like I said. Congrats, you found out that it costs money to educate kids.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

It also costs more money educate special ed kids who end up being minimum wage workers their entire lives. It also costs money to educate kids who end up dropping out and becoming gang members. Should we not provide education in low income areas? Should we not provide education to the mentally disabled?

Of course we should educate them. The government, local, state, and federal, has a moral, constitutional, and of course statutory obligation to provide an education to every American. Not every foreigner, thank goodness! What a disaster that would be. Imagine educating the special ed children of the world; how expensive! And I'm sure every American rejects that idea.

Yet, would Americans reject the noble and charitable notion of educating all of the special ed cases of the world if... we could house them and educate them without injuring the educational progress of Americans, and without incurring a net burden on society? I think opposition to educating all special ed children on planet earth would be quite low if it weren't for the problems it would cause for Americans.

Which brings us to why immigrant families are such a problem; they are a net negative for an entire generation, and can't become significantly net-positive until the 3rd generation. Which is why anybody who's read about the topic, and is concerned about their fiscal impacts and the tax dollars available to solve native-born Americans' problems, supports an immigration moratorium.

[u/Running_Gamer → u/DownrightCaterpillar]

Wrong. It is unconstitutional for a state government to refuse public education to even children of illegal immigrants.

You can keep making things up about immigration not being profitable until the third generation. No matter what you say, you can’t use a Time Machine to predict how the world will look three generations from now. If you think you can, go invest in the stock market.

[u/DownrightCaterpillar → u/Running_Gamer]

I never said anything about refusing to educate the children of people already here.I said there should be an immigration moratorium, thus preventing people from bringing their net costly children here.

It is perfectly constitutional and well within the powers of the executive branch to deny entry to anyone. That is at their discretion per Arizona v. United States

The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182... and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

So, yes, while the government has the obligation to provide such a illegal alien with an education given they're under a certain age threshold, they can also prevent their entry or remove said alien to their home country, and thus cease providing them with an education. Nice try though.