Of course ATEP should be counted in the deportation numbers. They’re still being deported and it make it more difficult for them to get smuggled back in. Although, high deportation figures means only that the border is porous. That should come as a shock to Napolitano.
I like the empirical support for spending cuts, but this is a complex issue.
First, the role of the policy changes that come with expenditure cuts could be important (and were not available for study).
“The role of accompanying policies could also play a role…These accompanying reforms may signal a ‘change of regime’, that is a policy switch towards a more market friendly policy stance, less taxation, liberalizations etc.” and thus improve business confidence.
Second, the fiscal cliff would not contain these policy changes and might instead be seen as irresponsible and thus damage business confidence.
Third, the complex situation in Europe and a slowing of growth in China would contribute to the perception of irresponsibility and again damage business confidence.
Running off the fiscal cliff is suicide, but we still have the chance to get our wings built.
Fiscal cliff: Spending cuts are followed by mild, short-lived recessions and in many cases no recession at all; yet tax increases create deep and prolonged recessions.
That’s a fundamental problem with Keynesian economics. It posits that governments should boost spending during recessions to stimulate demand that the private sector isn’t willing to fund. But, cutting back on government spending during times of growth isn’t politically feasible. Moreover, government spending during recessions is often malinvestmentused to fund infrastructure that is not needed. People hired to perform unnecessary tasks — that the private sector isn’t willing to fund– are not actively producing anything valuable except a slight bump in demand for consumer goods.
So is it good to deport illegal-immigrants or bad? In one breath he claims to try and stop it then claims he is doing it more than his predecessor. Clearly this is a ploy to get more votes.
Obama: I’m deporting more people than Bush did. Or is he?
Should anyone ever believe any reports released by the administration? It seems all we hear is how misleading stats are from programs implemented by Obama, including ATEP, and not how accurate they are.
“By deporting immigrants 1,200 miles or even 2,000 miles away from where they crossed, ATEP is intended to be a deterrent to discourage multiple attempts to cross the border. The border-crossers are also fingerprinted, so if they’re caught again trying to cross, the “consequences go up”—they can be repatriated even farther away, to the interior of Mexico…”
Whether deported closer or further from the border, this won’t stop them from driving/walking/or using whatever transportation method they use to move from point A to point B (even if it’s traveling across Mexico for that matter) if they REALLY wan’t to come back to the U.S.
If by “it makes it more difficult for them to get smuggled back in” you mean “The program repatriates certain Mexicans who are caught by border agents “to border ports hundreds of miles away, typically moving people from Arizona to Texas or California,”” then I think this program is a big failure. What makes you think these “smugglers” won’t try to come back into the U.S.? even if they are deported “miles away” from where they were caught? I don’t see how this program is any different from any other.
Of course ATEP should be counted in the deportation numbers. They’re still being deported and it make it more difficult for them to get smuggled back in. Although, high deportation figures means only that the border is porous. That should come as a shock to Napolitano.
Now only if Uncle Sam would deliver free lunch…
Is it any surprise that the top searches are for social wellfare programs.
I like the empirical support for spending cuts, but this is a complex issue.
First, the role of the policy changes that come with expenditure cuts could be important (and were not available for study).
“The role of accompanying policies could also play a role…These accompanying reforms may signal a ‘change of regime’, that is a policy switch towards a more market friendly policy stance, less taxation, liberalizations etc.” and thus improve business confidence.
Second, the fiscal cliff would not contain these policy changes and might instead be seen as irresponsible and thus damage business confidence.
Third, the complex situation in Europe and a slowing of growth in China would contribute to the perception of irresponsibility and again damage business confidence.
Running off the fiscal cliff is suicide, but we still have the chance to get our wings built.
As the original “Yankee Doodle” lyrics say:
“Old Uncle Sam come there to change
Some pancakes and some onions,
For ’lasses cakes, to carry home
To give his wife and young ones.”
…and the elderly, and…everyone!
Fiscal cliff: Spending cuts are followed by mild, short-lived recessions and in many cases no recession at all; yet tax increases create deep and prolonged recessions.
That’s a fundamental problem with Keynesian economics. It posits that governments should boost spending during recessions to stimulate demand that the private sector isn’t willing to fund. But, cutting back on government spending during times of growth isn’t politically feasible. Moreover, government spending during recessions is often malinvestmentused to fund infrastructure that is not needed. People hired to perform unnecessary tasks — that the private sector isn’t willing to fund– are not actively producing anything valuable except a slight bump in demand for consumer goods.
So is it good to deport illegal-immigrants or bad? In one breath he claims to try and stop it then claims he is doing it more than his predecessor. Clearly this is a ploy to get more votes.
Should anyone ever believe any reports released by the administration? It seems all we hear is how misleading stats are from programs implemented by Obama, including ATEP, and not how accurate they are.
Regarding the second link…
“By deporting immigrants 1,200 miles or even 2,000 miles away from where they crossed, ATEP is intended to be a deterrent to discourage multiple attempts to cross the border. The border-crossers are also fingerprinted, so if they’re caught again trying to cross, the “consequences go up”—they can be repatriated even farther away, to the interior of Mexico…”
Whether deported closer or further from the border, this won’t stop them from driving/walking/or using whatever transportation method they use to move from point A to point B (even if it’s traveling across Mexico for that matter) if they REALLY wan’t to come back to the U.S.
I’m going to have to disagree with Jordan.
If by “it makes it more difficult for them to get smuggled back in” you mean “The program repatriates certain Mexicans who are caught by border agents “to border ports hundreds of miles away, typically moving people from Arizona to Texas or California,”” then I think this program is a big failure. What makes you think these “smugglers” won’t try to come back into the U.S.? even if they are deported “miles away” from where they were caught? I don’t see how this program is any different from any other.
Uncle Sam, did you forget about me?