Author Topic: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand  (Read 39964 times)

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #100 on: November 16, 2016, 10:57:39 AM »
^^^^ Sure, everyone is racist to some degree. And I mean everyone. Some are overtly racist, some covertly, some intentionally and some unintentionally. All or most of us are racist in some contexts and not in others. But someone is not automatically "racist" because they are against illegal immigration while at the same time the majority of illegal immigrants happen to be non-white. Those things are co-incidental but not linked.

And +1 about Trump "telling it like it is." It nauseates me every time I hear that (and we've all heard it 1000 times at least) since he most definitely does not tell it like it is, but rather what is in his own misguided head and what certain people want to hear.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #101 on: November 16, 2016, 11:03:57 AM »
...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

Your path leads to anarchy. You're making the mistake of thinking about the people that already came in illegally; the problem is the signal you send to people that may be considering it. If you say to the world "illegal immigrants will be granted full status after a period of X years" then a) nobody will queue and b) you will have a flood of people coming illegally.

Until we're in a world where anyone can live anywhere with no barrier, you simply have to have a solid system. Especially when you are attractive. The more attractive a place to live, the tougher the border needs to be.

A) Why does anybody need to queue?  What is the value in queuing?

R U serious? Or trolling? Or are you an actual anarchist as suggested above? You do realize that if people don't orderly line up for things, it leads to chaos and injury and destruction and hurt feelings, right? Like, should I just push an old lady out of the front of the line at the grocery store today? Or sneak into the movie theater without a ticket, screw those suckers who actually paid for a ticket and waited for a seat? Or push ahead of a person legally applying to migrate by just crossing the river?

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #102 on: November 16, 2016, 11:07:29 AM »
That's right Texas legally beat that land away from Mexico. They're not allowed to just walk on over.

little_brown_dog

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #103 on: November 16, 2016, 11:10:24 AM »
I actually agree with the “unfair” position that some people are posting, but not due to moral reasons. I worked with resettled refugees, and I worry about what a massive influx of new low income citizens might mean for them after they patiently waited for years to gain the protection of the US.

If you suddenly made all 10+ million undocumented workers citizens, you would likely see a spike in social service requests, as many of them qualify for income based aid but are currently cut off from it due to their citizenship status. Citizenship does not suddenly fix their income level or job prospects, as many undocumented workers would continue to have insufficient education or skills to qualify for higher paying positions. While they do pay taxes, like the other working poor in the US, their taxes are often lower and the net gain from those taxes is in part eaten up by the group’s increased use of safety net services due to their very low incomes. Unless we dramatically increase the amount of aid available in the safety net systems to respond to this influx, we could see a serious decline in benefits across the board as the system is stretched, including benefits to those refugees who waited for years on lists to be able to come here (refugees are heavily supported by the govt until they assimilate). Worse, we might see reductions in the numbers of legal refugees allowed in through the resettlement programs due to insufficient funding to provide for them once they get here. Given how much the US citizenry and government tends to fight increases in spending on the safety net programs, I think it is unrealistic to expect a massive budget increase to cope with potentially millions more citizens requiring assistance.

I am not against immigration reform at all, and think we definitely need to make it easier. I also think hard working undocumented workers should be able to stay despite the fact that they may not be here legally. But I have legitimate concerns about the ultra left’s immigration utopia situation where everyone just gets to be citizens and we all live happily ever after. Most of these people are so myopically focused on the immediate needs of the undocumented workers that they forget there are downstream consequences for other vulnerable people that could occur if the immigration issue is not handled with the utmost care and foresight. It’s not about the principle of the thing, it is about what unintended effects could arise from providing all the benefits of citizenship to large numbers of low income people who might require years of support before they can fully operate on their own. I am absolutely a huge fan of the safety net system, and I would like to see it expanded. I don’t worry about this issue affecting me or my taxes, but I do worry about the effects it could have on those legal Americans and resettled refugees who rely heavily on the safety net. I personally would be very upset if our decision to authenticate millions of undocumented workers somehow resulted in less aid for resettled refugees or fewer refugees taken in.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #104 on: November 16, 2016, 11:20:44 AM »
The US has great quality graduate school STEM education at the graduate and sometimes undergraduate level (depends on school), but as someone who graduated from a statistics phD program, how much of it is available to American students (see my first post about US students being kicked out of graduate programs)?   At the grade school and middle/high school level I would argue the math education is far inferior to that of China and many other countries, please see http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12.  I wont personally take a hard stance about science overall but as the link shows it probably also is worse in the US at the elementary and middle/high school levels.  Since I studied a math field, I feel confident to speak about math.  But unfortunately, math is the basis for a lot of other STEM fields like physics, engineering, or even programming so being bad at math, especially from an early age, can really handicap the student later in life if they decide to pursue a related field.

I can personally attest that I know more than 10 domestic students who tried to pursue the phD in statistics or biostatistics but where kicked out of my program after a one or two year investment.  Some of the biostats students moved to epidemiology :( and others quit and took the masters and now work in various places.  They were all very hard working, but the American education system, the way that subjects are taught subjects like pre-calculus, calculus, proof based math, real analysis, complex analysis, linear algebra, etc is not rigorous enough and does not adequately prepare a lot of students for graduate level math.  Don't even get me started on measure theory btw (which is barely taught, sometimes skipped altogether, or taught only in passing at the undergraduate level in the US but expected to be known at the graduate level. Of course all the Chinese students I met were all well trained in measure theory)!

Okay, you know American students who failed out of grad school. So do I. Grad school is hard. It's supposed to be hard! Not everyone is cut out for it. But you know what else? I also have white American friends and former classmates who went to public school in middle America and went on to earn PhDs in math, statistics, physics, materials science, computer science, and other disciplines. Our system prepared them just fine. What differentiated them is that these students spent much more time studying than other students who were fine with earning a B average and quitting after undergrad. They put in the effort needed to master the material and they did it.

My second year of my master's program I helped out reviewing applications for our department, one of the better-ranked computer science programs in the country. At the beginning of it they mentioned that since we were a state school, we were aiming to have about 50% domestic students in the incoming class, even though international applicants vastly outnumbered the domestic ones. So while our domestic students were very well-qualified in their own right, the international students were really the best of the best. India and China each have over a billion people. They know they will need to study twice as hard just to get the same chances as someone born in America, so that's what they do. Is it any surprise that they produce a large quantity of talented people?

On the one hand, you say that the US education system is doing a poor job at preparing students in STEM disciplines. On the other hand, you argue that cutting back on foreign visas and forcing companies to hire more Americans would not hurt these companies' ability to innovate. That seems very contradictory. How can both things be true?

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #105 on: November 16, 2016, 11:27:08 AM »
...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

Your path leads to anarchy. You're making the mistake of thinking about the people that already came in illegally; the problem is the signal you send to people that may be considering it. If you say to the world "illegal immigrants will be granted full status after a period of X years" then a) nobody will queue and b) you will have a flood of people coming illegally.

Until we're in a world where anyone can live anywhere with no barrier, you simply have to have a solid system. Especially when you are attractive. The more attractive a place to live, the tougher the border needs to be.

A) Why does anybody need to queue?  What is the value in queuing?

R U serious? Or trolling? Or are you an actual anarchist as suggested above? You do realize that if people don't orderly line up for things, it leads to chaos and injury and destruction and hurt feelings, right? Like, should I just push an old lady out of the front of the line at the grocery store today? Or sneak into the movie theater without a ticket, screw those suckers who actually paid for a ticket and waited for a seat? Or push ahead of a person legally applying to migrate by just crossing the river?

I think the question was more along the lines of: is it at all justifiable to make people wait upwards of 20 years to legally join their American family members here in the US? What excuse is there for having a line that long in the first place?

Sure, run a background check, do what you need to do. Let the people who applied first get in first. But the long line is itself a problem that needs to be solved not by building a wall but by hiring a few more people to push the paperwork through and let these people live where they want to live.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #106 on: November 16, 2016, 11:55:09 AM »
A) Why does anybody need to queue?  What is the value in queuing?

R U serious? Or trolling? Or are you an actual anarchist as suggested above? You do realize that if people don't orderly line up for things, it leads to chaos and injury and destruction and hurt feelings, right? Like, should I just push an old lady out of the front of the line at the grocery store today? Or sneak into the movie theater without a ticket, screw those suckers who actually paid for a ticket and waited for a seat? Or push ahead of a person legally applying to migrate by just crossing the river?

I think the question was more along the lines of: is it at all justifiable to make people wait upwards of 20 years to legally join their American family members here in the US? What excuse is there for having a line that long in the first place?

Sure, run a background check, do what you need to do. Let the people who applied first get in first. But the long line is itself a problem that needs to be solved not by building a wall but by hiring a few more people to push the paperwork through and let these people live where they want to live.

Really, I was just trying to get people to think about what the inherent value is in waiting in line.  The only reason we queue up for anything like that is because we have a limited amount of something and we think that the fairest way to allocate that thing is on a first come, first serve basis (I'm not sure I agree with that, but that's beside the point).  If making someone wait in line is not actually accomplishing that goal, then there's no reason to make them wait in a line.  So all we have to do is design the system in a way that the path to citizenship will not delay anyone else getting in to the country and the criticism is suddenly moot.  I think that by improving the legal immigration system so that it doesn't take decades while also providing a path to citizenship for those who are already here accomplishes that goal pretty well.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #107 on: November 16, 2016, 01:19:12 PM »
@Shenlong55

You called me naive.  I'm curious, do you find FACTS to be naive?

Taken from https://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms-data/data-set-all-uscis-application-and-petition-form-types the federal immigration website

From the data they have available 2012-2016 (up to Q3 of 2016)

Year             Number of immigration applicants (US)
2016 (up to Q3)   5,745,173 – projected 7,660,230
2015   7,650,475
2014   6,384,648
2013   6,477,977
2012   6,019,005

In 2012 to 2016 there were more than 34 million immigration applications.  Extrapolating back to the years from 2000-2016, using those same numbers (even leaving out 2 years entirely to be conservative - assuming ZERO immigration for 2 of those years).  In the span of 2000-2016 there would be over 102 million immigration applications.  This is almost HALF the population of the size of the US (not counting illegal immigrants).

To everyone who welcomes open borders, and shorter wait times etc etc etc, I ask you, if we took in every immigrant who applied to come to the US from 2000, or even from an earlier or later timepoint, how would we provide the resources, infrastructure etc to take care of that many people?  How would our schools, housing, hospitals etc accommodate a 50% rise in attendance?

I'm not advocating for open borders.  Not now anyways.  I can see a time in the future where that could be possible, but I'll readily acknowledge that that time is not now.  As for shorter wait times, are you saying that your in favor of decades long wait times?  Genuine curiosity here, I thought we were pretty much in agreement that decades long wait times were not acceptable.

And Shen to answer your other question of how I am contradictory.  I do not consider it unfair or contradictory for the US to prioritize Americans.  After all aren't US citizens the ones who vote, and pay taxes?  I know you had pointed out illegal immigrants pay state sales taxes (but not every state has sales tax) and property taxes (really? can you give me the statistics as to how many illegal immigrants pay property taxes?).

No, I don't have that data, it was pointed out earlier in the thread and seems to make sense.  Not sure why undocumented immigrants would come here and live in a box and not buy anything.  But my point was that it's a lot more complicated than you seem to be implying.  You can't just say that undocumented immigrants are a giant drain on our system without actually looking at both sides.  I also said that if you had a study or other source that actually looked at the net effect of undocumented immigration that I would be glad to read over it and possibly even change my position if it's persuasive enough.

I advocate that the US treat US citizens slightly better than it treats the rest of the world, and that it treats on the next level immigrants from every country the same.  HOW IS THAT UNFAIR? You can disagree with that, but isn't that sort of the reason we have borders to begin with, or even families?  I would love the idea for everyone everywhere to treat me the same, but the way our current system is set up people within families, countries, etc are kind of expected to take care of their own citizens, and if they cannot then other persons or countries may step in, but the first line of rescue is usually with that country or with the person's own family members.  You can argue all you want this system is unfair, and I would LOVE if it were different.  How great would that be if everyone in the world treated me like my own parents do? But this is the system we currently have.

So, you think the current system is fair but you would LOVE if it were different?  So you would prefer the unfair version?  Or is the version we have now just the fairest that we have available at the moment and a system where everyone was treated the same would actually be fairer?  No one is saying that you can't think that the unfair version is the best we can do right now, but at least acknowledging it's lack of fairness opens you up to possible ways to make it more fair in the future and since your other points hinged on fairness so much I thought that would be important to you.

I think all immigrants should be treated the same.  If they cannot all be allowed in then we should use the lottery system, and go by size of country, number of applicants, etc.  Now special consideration can and should be given to refugees (true refugees) and some other people with unique circumstances, or something unique to bring to the US.  But I don't think it's fair for people to just hop the fence - because even if you believe it's fair to the person who's waiting, they end up taking resources away from other citizens and legal immigrants.  And I AM AN IMMIGRANT.  I am also a MINORITY, and a WOMAN.  So you can feel free in your head to think that I am racist, bigoted, etc all you want, but I think drawing simple black an white lines like that is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM with this country.

I never called you racist, bigoted or anything similar to that, nor do I think that you are any of those things.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #108 on: November 16, 2016, 01:27:14 PM »
@ SeattleCylclone I'm not saying there are 0 successful STEM students in the US.  And I'm not saying the US should stop taking workers with H1B visas.  Not AT ALL.  So please do not confuse that with what I'm actually saying which is I do not feel we need to INCREASE the number of h1b visas in order to innovate.  Can you prove to me that if we did not increase the number of h1b visas our companies would in fact stop innovating and be wiped out?

No, I have no definitive proof. I don't think we would be "wiped out," but we would be worse off for sure. I can give you an anecdote of my coworker, originally from China, who had to spend a year working at our European office because there wasn't an H1-B visa available when we hired her. She could have spent that year earning a software engineer's salary in the US, paying taxes in the US, and supporting various service businesses in the US, if only we had more visas available. Instead she did those things in Europe. How is making my coworker spend a year in Europe better for America than letting her come here directly? In no case would we decide not to hire my coworker and go with the most-qualified American applicant that we rejected. We rejected them because they weren't as good. Period. We're hiring my coworker regardless. The only question is where she will earn money and pay taxes. Increase the quota and she spends more of her career here.

Quote
I think it's good to have a mix of foreign and US workers, but I also think it's good to encourage STEM education and STEM workers in the US, I don't think that's contradictory at all.  Our secondary and primary school math education (and science) on average does lag behind significantly with China and other countries (do you disagree with the statistic I posted last time?- please feel free to post your own statistic about American math education at the elementary up to high school level). 

The problem with aggregated test scores is that it's impossible to tell how much of the difference comes from the quality of the school system and how much comes from the work ethic of the students. The students I know from America who have put in as much effort as their immigrant counterparts have done fantastically well for themselves.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #109 on: November 16, 2016, 01:30:52 PM »
In 2012 to 2016 there were more than 34 million immigration applications.  Extrapolating back to the years from 2000-2016, using those same numbers (even leaving out 2 years entirely to be conservative - assuming ZERO immigration for 2 of those years).  In the span of 2000-2016 there would be over 102 million immigration applications.  This is almost HALF the population of the size of the US (not counting illegal immigrants).

To everyone who welcomes open borders, and shorter wait times etc etc etc, I ask you, if we took in every immigrant who applied to come to the US from 2000, or even from an earlier or later timepoint, how would we provide the resources, infrastructure etc to take care of that many people?  The 102 million number is only the number of APPLICATIONS.  It would be indeed naive to think that everyone who wants to or would willingly come to the US even fills out an application.  If we did open our borders, the true number of additional immigrants from Central American and Mexico, or even countries like Russia would rise considerably beyond this 102 million (let's just say 30% conservatively) more but this could easily be as high as double.  You seem like a smart person, please lay out to me how our schools, housing, hospitals, not to mention prisons or freeways, etc will accommodate a 80% rise in attendance?

By using the extra base created by the corresponding 80% increase in economic output due to the immigrants' labor to pay for expanding them, of course. That should have been obvious.


ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #110 on: November 16, 2016, 01:38:57 PM »
...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

Except the ones who wait in line are paying for their ticket.  They're also going through the metal detector.

It's true, my analogy isn't perfect.  There are a lot of hoops to jump through to gain citizenship, because there are more people who want to be citizens than there are spaces for them to go.  The hoops include having a good reason that the United States would want you to come here.  If someone submits an application and has no job lined up, a criminal record, and is broke, they're going to get denied.  There is no such test for illegal immigrants.

I guess in the analogy the ones waiting in line are "paying" for their popcorn by having traits the United States decided are valuable enough to make them citizens.  Maybe they're a doctor, maybe they have a bunch of money they're ready to spend here, maybe a company is willing to pay to bring them in.  They're also literally paying, as the application and citizenship process isn't free.

As I said, if you think the answer is let in everyone who wants to, that's certainly defensible.  I think we'll be overrun pretty quickly if we go down that road, as the number of applications posted above shows, but it's a position I'd respect.  My point is, if you want illegals made citizens and given benefits, it makes no sense to want people from other countries to have to go through any sort of immigrations control either. 


To extend an additional thought experiment, what if we extended this to driver's licenses?  Should we not persecute people for driving without a license, because they're mostly good people and can probably drive fine?  Sure some of them are bad, but that's being very stereotypical and isn't really fair to the good ones.  The DMV has long lines, and boy it's a pain in the ass to get all of that identification together if you don't have it all ready to go.  Then again, if we aren't going to persecute illegal driving without a license, why have the license at all? 

Saying you're against people driving illegally and that they should be punished is not "anti-driving."  It's "anti-illegal-driving."
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 01:42:58 PM by ooeei »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #111 on: November 16, 2016, 01:56:13 PM »
To extend an additional thought experiment, what if we extended this to driver's licenses?  Should we not persecute people for driving without a license, because they're mostly good people and can probably drive fine?  Sure some of them are bad, but that's being very stereotypical and isn't really fair to the good ones.  The DMV has long lines, and boy it's a pain in the ass to get all of that identification together if you don't have it all ready to go.  Then again, if we aren't going to persecute illegal driving without a license, why have the license at all? 

Interesting idea!

I think drivers' licenses were probably necessary in order to establish a driving culture with orderly rules in the first place. (Or as a counterexample, I think the experience of developing countries like India makes it clear that letting an entire society of first-generation drivers loose with inadequate training causes substantial chaos.) However, if we took an established driving culture and then stopped requiring the relatively small number of new drivers added each year to be licensed, it might be possible that they would follow the rules naturally by learning from the existing drivers' example.

(Note: I'm not trying to make an analogy to immigration here.)

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #112 on: November 16, 2016, 02:01:55 PM »
...I certainly don't think the correct response is giving them all free popcorn and soda, and giving them an admissions ticket after the fact...

Why not?  If you are perfectly fine giving them all free popcorn, soda and admissions if they wait in line then what's wrong with giving it to them now that they're in the theater?  You don't seem to be attributing any inherent value to the process of waiting in line.  It just seems like you want person A to wait in line solely because person B waited in line.  I'm sorry, but I really feel like pushing back against this idea that fairness requires others to suffer just because I suffered.

Except the ones who wait in line are paying for their ticket.  They're also going through the metal detector.

It's true, my analogy isn't perfect.  There are a lot of hoops to jump through to gain citizenship, because there are more people who want to be citizens than there are spaces for them to go.  The hoops include having a good reason that the United States would want you to come here.  If someone submits an application and has no job lined up, a criminal record, and is broke, they're going to get denied.  There is no such test for illegal immigrants.

I guess in the analogy the ones waiting in line are "paying" for their popcorn by having traits the United States decided are valuable enough to make them citizens.  Maybe they're a doctor, maybe they have a bunch of money they're ready to spend here, maybe a company is willing to pay to bring them in.  They're also literally paying, as the application and citizenship process isn't free.

As I said, if you think the answer is let in everyone who wants to, that's certainly defensible.  I think we'll be overrun pretty quickly if we go down that road, as the number of applications posted above shows, but it's a position I'd respect.  My point is, if you want illegals made citizens and given benefits, it makes no sense to want people from other countries to have to go through any sort of immigrations control either. 

What's stopping us from having the people in the theater pay for their ticket and 'go through the metal detector'?

And again, I'm not advocating for open borders, at least not now.

To extend an additional thought experiment, what if we extended this to driver's licenses?  Should we not persecute people for driving without a license, because they're mostly good people and can probably drive fine?  Sure some of them are bad, but that's being very stereotypical and isn't really fair to the good ones.  The DMV has long lines, and boy it's a pain in the ass to get all of that identification together if you don't have it all ready to go.  Then again, if we aren't going to persecute illegal driving without a license, why have the license at all? 

Saying you're against people driving illegally and that they should be punished is not "anti-driving."  It's "anti-illegal-driving."

Well, to be honest, I don't think punishment is nearly as effective a motivator as we seem to think it is.  Personally, I think that if someone were driving without a license then we should try to figure out why they were driving without a license and address that.  If it's because they're parent's are teaching them how to drive, then I think that's probably fine as long as it's done safely.  If it's because they just don't care if they hurt other people then we help them see why they shouldn't hold that view (reform, not punishment). Etc, etc.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #113 on: November 16, 2016, 02:03:21 PM »
Grapefruit is being either flat out dishonest or doesn't understand how petitions are filed.

USCIS does not admit 7 million immigrants per year. The figures quoted on that pdf represent forms filed. One petition contains many forms, not even necessarily filed at the same time. A much more useful metric is the number of green cards issued every year, which is about one million.

There are legitimate issues regarding the assimilation of newcomers, but please use real numbers.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #114 on: November 16, 2016, 02:12:01 PM »
What's stopping us from having the people in the theater pay for their ticket and 'go through the metal detector'?

The fact that they won't wait in line.  Who's going to take the money from them and put them through the metal detector?  There's still a line outside to get to those employees, I would say we should send them to the back of the line.  That means, out of the theater.  Or do you think they should get to cut to the front?  Or maybe the theater should hire and pay special employees to personally go into the theaters to do the transactions for the people who snuck in the side door, which by the way will be extremely inefficient compared to lining everyone up?

Quote
And again, I'm not advocating for open borders, at least not now.

So you're for letting people in with no control or process, but not for open borders?

Quote
Well, to be honest, I don't think punishment is nearly as effective a motivator as we seem to think it is.  Personally, I think that if someone were driving without a license then we should try to figure out why they were driving without a license and address that.  If it's because they're parent's are teaching them how to drive, then I think that's probably fine as long as it's done safely.  If it's because they just don't care if they hurt other people then we help them see why they shouldn't hold that view (reform, not punishment). Etc, etc.

Well that's great and all, but not really practical.  How much do you think it costs to get to the bottom of all of that, and send a special case worker out with every single person driving without a license to get to the bottom of their highly personal issue (which they may or may not lie about)?  I got a speeding ticket and my court date was set 8 months from when I got the ticket.  That's just with them hearing other people's sides and usually saying "yeah but you were speeding, guilty."  They had an 8 month backlog for that.  Can you imagine how long it'd be if they "tried to figure out why each person was speeding" and really get to the root of the problem and help the person solve it?

What you're proposing works well for 1-2 people.  It doesn't work well if 100's, 1000's, or 1,000,000's of people are breaking these rules on a regular basis.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 02:14:21 PM by ooeei »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #115 on: November 16, 2016, 02:35:06 PM »
What you're proposing works well for 1-2 people.  It doesn't work well if 100's, 1000's, or 1,000,000's of people are breaking these rules on a regular basis.

If a rule is broken on a regular basis, then the consensus is clear that the rule is wrong.

Considering that the incarceration rate in the US is incredibly high compared to every other country in the world, it's also clear that we have a lot of wrong rules.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understandv
« Reply #116 on: November 16, 2016, 03:09:55 PM »
@Paul

I never said that was the number of immigrants.  I clearly stated MULTIPLE TIMES it's the number of applications.  I am well aware of the actual numbers of immigrants.
No you didn't. Your quoted the seven million number as if each represented an individual person. Again it is forms, not applications. Then you proceeded to make a ridiculous extrapolation of 100 million new immigrants if they were all approved over the course of fifteen years. The reality is that most applications are approved, even if it takes a long time, because it costs a boatload of money to file the forms and only people who have a shot at getting approved actually file them. This is apparent in the approved columns of the very pdf you linked to.

Your language is fast and loose and doesn't demonstrate knowledge of the immigration system you claim to have gone through yourself.

Anecdotally, I am a first generation immigrant myself, who has filed multiple forms and who will file more in the coming years. Last I checked, I was still a single person.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #117 on: November 16, 2016, 03:33:22 PM »
What you're proposing works well for 1-2 people.  It doesn't work well if 100's, 1000's, or 1,000,000's of people are breaking these rules on a regular basis.

If a rule is broken on a regular basis, then the consensus is clear that the rule is wrong.

Considering that the incarceration rate in the US is incredibly high compared to every other country in the world, it's also clear that we have a lot of wrong rules.

OR it represents that a rule isn't enforced or the penalty is trivial versus the crime.  The law against murder is broken on a tragically regular basis in Chicago every day, it just means people aren't afraid of the law for whatever reason.  I don't think anyone would argue the law is wrong.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #118 on: November 16, 2016, 03:55:50 PM »
What's stopping us from having the people in the theater pay for their ticket and 'go through the metal detector'?

The fact that they won't wait in line.  Who's going to take the money from them and put them through the metal detector?  There's still a line outside to get to those employees, I would say we should send them to the back of the line.  That means, out of the theater.  Or do you think they should get to cut to the front?  Or maybe the theater should hire and pay special employees to personally go into the theaters to do the transactions for the people who snuck in the side door, which by the way will be extremely inefficient compared to lining everyone up?

I would go with the bold option, and disagree with the non-bold part at the end.  Yes it would cost us some money, most solutions to problems do.  The real questions are would it cost more or less than the current system and if more, then could it be paid for in a reasonable way.

So you're for letting people in with no control or process, but not for open borders?

Nope, never said any of that, except that I'm not currently for open borders.

Well that's great and all, but not really practical.  How much do you think it costs to get to the bottom of all of that, and send a special case worker out with every single person driving without a license to get to the bottom of their highly personal issue (which they may or may not lie about)?  I got a speeding ticket and my court date was set 8 months from when I got the ticket.  That's just with them hearing other people's sides and usually saying "yeah but you were speeding, guilty."  They had an 8 month backlog for that.  Can you imagine how long it'd be if they "tried to figure out why each person was speeding" and really get to the root of the problem and help the person solve it?

What you're proposing works well for 1-2 people.  It doesn't work well if 100's, 1000's, or 1,000,000's of people are breaking these rules on a regular basis.

Eh, I don't really feel like arguing this point, it's not important anyway.  Let me just take different approach.  If you're really just stuck on the idea that undocumented immigrants need to be punished in order to deter others from doing the same thing in the future then why does the punishment have to be deportation?  Why can't it be a fine?  In fact, that actually sounds like a great way to pay for the costs that you seemed to be worried about up above.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #119 on: November 16, 2016, 04:05:51 PM »
@ Shen

Great!  I am glad we are making progress.  I'm glad you can acknowledge that the US is in it's current state infrastructure and resource wise, not ready for open borders.  Now that could change in the future, and I'm not against that if we eventually have the ability to support that.  But I don't see it happening in the near future.

I never implied illegal immigration was all negative.  Not at all.  I only said I believe (and it's difficult to prove because of how many factors are involved and what media resources you believe), that illegal immigration is SLIGHTLY NET NEGATIVE.  I think there are many positive things that come from illegal immigration, and I certainly don't think a majority or even a minority of illegal immigrants are criminals, but my opinion is it's still net negative.  And if I find good quality unbiased resources I will for sure send them your way :)

I do think the current system is unfair and I happily acknowledge that, just like the current legal system, and the current financial system, and etc.  I am sure, a lot of people, myself included would prefer to live in a utopia where every country has an open border, and every person treats each other like family.  And maybe as humans evolve, we will reach that.  But that's not the current system that we have, and we cannot snap our fingers and get to somewhere else overnight.  We have a system of borders, sovereignty of nations, etc, and in our current model each country's responsibility is to take care of it's own citizens first, and other's second.  That doesn't apply just to the US, it applies to every country.  I'm merely advocating to work within the framework of the current system, which is far from perfect, until we are able to potentially create a better system.  To me this means the US treats Americans slightly better than it treats immigrants, and treats all other immigrants the same (unless they are refugees etc).  I think if every country can achieve treating it's own citizens better, we can make progress toward the greater human good.

Well, it's sounds to me like we agree on most things except whether we should be concerned about a "SLIGHTLY NET NEGATIVE".  I don't think we should be, since, IMO, there are much better ways to save money.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #120 on: November 16, 2016, 04:22:44 PM »
[rant]
So please prove to me USING FACTS - since you are an expert on immigration policy - that the number of actual immigration applicants is MUCH lower than the number of applications filed?
It's pretty simple.

USCIS gives out 1 million green cards per year.
USCIS processes 7 million forms (which you keep calling "applications") per year.
USCIS approves about 80% of the forms received (the approved columns of the PDF)

If most people were filing only one form, then USCIS would be giving out 5 million green cards per year.
USCIS is not giving 5 million green cards per year.
Therefore, there is nowhere near 7 million applicants per year.

In 2012 to 2016 there were more than 34 million immigration applications.  Extrapolating back to the years from 2000-2016, using those same numbers (even leaving out 2 years entirely to be conservative - assuming ZERO immigration for 2 of those years).  In the span of 2000-2016 there would be over 102 million immigration applications.  This is almost HALF the population of the size of the US (not counting illegal immigrants).
Again, using the 80% form approval rate, this would mean that USCIS has admitted 80 million immigrants since the turn of the century. Considering 80 million represents the entire state of California twice over, I think we can safely agree this hasn't happened.

EDIT: you may wish to add the 700k new citizens (who were already admitted as green card holders) to the math above. There are probably some petitioners who were born abroad to US citizen parents filing for immediate citizenship too. It still doesn't even come close.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 04:28:44 PM by Paul der Krake »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #121 on: November 16, 2016, 04:27:35 PM »
@shen A fine sounds like a great way to go for me!  I would 100% advocate a hefty fine over deportation, since that would add to our coffers and help offset the cost of keeping the immigrant, but unfortunately, most of the people we would deport could not afford to pay the fine.  BUT I would still in theory be in favor of fining the country they come from, but again, those countries are either really poor or they just wouldn't pay...

Also modified from the original response to respond to you about whether or not to be concerned with a slight net negative.  Funny so isn't the point of the entire MMM website that EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS?  I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying it's ironic, because we are literally posting on a website forum which is about frugality.  There might indeed be better ways to save money, but imo this is still one way.

I was going to mention that the reason why I don't think we should be concerned with it is probably because of my lack of concern with the national debt, but I didn't really want to open that can of worms.  Suffice it to say that I disagree with the idea that our national finances should be run like our family finances, based on everything that I know about economics.

Paul der Krake

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5854
  • Age: 16
  • Location: UTC-10:00
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #122 on: November 16, 2016, 04:52:12 PM »
Temporary workers are not immigrants. They may file for immigrant status at a later date, at which point they will be counted in the appropriate category.

I am done arguing over this.

tooqk4u22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2833
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #123 on: November 17, 2016, 11:48:05 AM »
The idea that "illegal immigrants" don't pay taxes is not accurate.  They do.  In fact, an argument can be made that they should be REIMBURSED as they are not able to receive the benefits of their tax contributions.  (ie. Medicare/Medicaid, social security, welfare, food stamps). 

Here's a USA Today article: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-01/study-undocumented-immigrants-pay-billions-in-taxes

The article references all kinds of taxes not just income taxes and then at the end  indicates

 "In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes," a report from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation think tank said in 2013. "This [deficit's] cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers."

In other words, even though immigrants in the country illegally pay billions of dollars to the U.S. government in the form of taxes, some research still pegs them as a net drain on government resources. But while neither the Heritage Foundation's report nor the institute's latest taxation study are likely to completely clear up much debate around whether such immigrants are a boon or a burden to the U.S. economy, the institute's report makes it clear that local governments collect at least some revenues from them.

And, regarding the argument that "illegals" are not contributing their fair share for public schools, that is also wrong.  School funding in the US is primarily determined by a district's property taxes.  Whether a person owns or rents, their payments are going in to the school system.

This is generally true for middle income/suburban districts but most illegal immigrants end up in rural or urban low income areas where the majority of school funding comes from state and federal sources (ie income taxes).

Renegade23

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #124 on: November 17, 2016, 11:53:56 AM »
Personally I think we need to take in as many immigrants as our country can integrate on an annual basis. If I had to give a rough estimate it would be about 1%. So every year we should allow in 3 million immigrants. To maximize the immediate gains I would also weight the system in favor of the educated and require immigrants (who are obtaining residency) to have $10,000 or some other amount of savings.

I would be all for open borders and free movement of people except that I think it is important that we are able to integrate immigrants. Fully open borders would cause too many to arrive at the same time and create a strain on the system both financially and socially.

Almost every economist will tell you that immigrants are good for an economy. They work harder than natives, create more and are more entrepreneurial. Largely because people who are willing to immigrate self select for positive risk taking behavior.

Renegade23

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #125 on: November 17, 2016, 11:55:29 AM »
Another quick comment. Anti-immigration is not purely a Republican phenomenon. Plenty of the labor union democrats are anti-immigration. We can't have the free market pushing down artificially high wage rates now!

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #126 on: November 17, 2016, 12:20:07 PM »
In the immigration debate, I wish people would let go of the ridiculous trope that "[illegal] immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, and without them the American economy would crash!"

There is no job some American citizen or legal resident would not do for the right pay. The presence of a large, illegal workforce keeps wages for those jobs artificially low and therefore prices for those goods artificially low. If in a hypothetical society there was not one illegal worker, then wages in those jobs would rise accordingly in order to hire workers and get the goods produced (or tomatoes picked). Prices for those goods would go up. It all balances out before long, that's Economics 101. There would be no damage to the economy. For example, you can afford a $1/pound increase in the price of fruits/vegetables when wages go up by $1/hour on average. Sure, a sudden shock to the system like deporting every single illegal worker all at once would be highly disruptive to the economy, so you don't have to do it all at once. But it is absolutely not true that legal workers would not do those jobs if illegal workers were not around to artificially deflate wages.

Note that this is strictly an economics argument, not a moral one (that is, sometimes we do things that don't make perfect economic sense simply because it's the right thing to do).

Renegade23

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #127 on: November 17, 2016, 12:27:28 PM »
In the immigration debate, I wish people would let go of the ridiculous trope that "[illegal] immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, and without them the American economy would crash!"

There is no job some American citizen or legal resident would not do for the right pay. The presence of a large, illegal workforce keeps wages for those jobs artificially low and therefore prices for those goods artificially low. If in a hypothetical society there was not one illegal worker, then wages in those jobs would rise accordingly in order to hire workers and get the goods produced (or tomatoes picked). Prices for those goods would go up. It all balances out before long, that's Economics 101. There would be no damage to the economy. For example, you can afford a $1/pound increase in the price of fruits/vegetables when wages go up by $1/hour on average. Sure, a sudden shock to the system like deporting every single illegal worker all at once would be highly disruptive to the economy, so you don't have to do it all at once. But it is absolutely not true that legal workers would not do those jobs if illegal workers were not around to artificially deflate wages.

Note that this is strictly an economics argument, not a moral one (that is, sometimes we do things that don't make perfect economic sense simply because it's the right thing to do).

I 100% agree with your argument. The problem is the increased cost of inputs would mean that output would go down for those industries (simple econ). US goods would be less competitive with imported goods and so we would produce less. Illegal immigration is a way to import cheap labor into the US to do jobs where you can't export the manufacturing plant (in this case farms).

Kicking the illegals out would cause many farmers to switch to lower margin crops that require less manpower. This would be "fair" but hardly beneficial to the US economy. Most quality studies have shown that illegal immigrants are largely net neutral on taxes. They pay sales and property taxes (through rent) and many pay to SSI and consume federal dollars through education subsidies and free food for their kids.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #128 on: November 17, 2016, 01:28:40 PM »
In the immigration debate, I wish people would let go of the ridiculous trope that "[illegal] immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, and without them the American economy would crash!"

There is no job some American citizen or legal resident would not do for the right pay. The presence of a large, illegal workforce keeps wages for those jobs artificially low and therefore prices for those goods artificially low. If in a hypothetical society there was not one illegal worker, then wages in those jobs would rise accordingly in order to hire workers and get the goods produced (or tomatoes picked). Prices for those goods would go up. It all balances out before long, that's Economics 101. There would be no damage to the economy. For example, you can afford a $1/pound increase in the price of fruits/vegetables when wages go up by $1/hour on average. Sure, a sudden shock to the system like deporting every single illegal worker all at once would be highly disruptive to the economy, so you don't have to do it all at once. But it is absolutely not true that legal workers would not do those jobs if illegal workers were not around to artificially deflate wages.

Note that this is strictly an economics argument, not a moral one (that is, sometimes we do things that don't make perfect economic sense simply because it's the right thing to do).

Time and again, the conversation revolves around what to do with illegal immigrants.  That's misdirection of effort in my opinion.

I've argued for quite a while that the most humane way to stop illegal immigrants from being a problem is to come down hard enough on the illegal employers that it is cost prohibitive to use the workers they employ.  Currently the system doesn't seem to punish the employers anywhere near as much as the employees . . . and that creates the whole situation that exists today.  You won't have a constant stream of people sneaking into the country to work if you don't have jobs ready for them when they get across the border.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #129 on: November 17, 2016, 01:35:22 PM »
In the immigration debate, I wish people would let go of the ridiculous trope that "[illegal] immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do, and without them the American economy would crash!"

There is no job some American citizen or legal resident would not do for the right pay. The presence of a large, illegal workforce keeps wages for those jobs artificially low and therefore prices for those goods artificially low. If in a hypothetical society there was not one illegal worker, then wages in those jobs would rise accordingly in order to hire workers and get the goods produced (or tomatoes picked). Prices for those goods would go up. It all balances out before long, that's Economics 101. There would be no damage to the economy. For example, you can afford a $1/pound increase in the price of fruits/vegetables when wages go up by $1/hour on average. Sure, a sudden shock to the system like deporting every single illegal worker all at once would be highly disruptive to the economy, so you don't have to do it all at once. But it is absolutely not true that legal workers would not do those jobs if illegal workers were not around to artificially deflate wages.

Note that this is strictly an economics argument, not a moral one (that is, sometimes we do things that don't make perfect economic sense simply because it's the right thing to do).

Time and again, the conversation revolves around what to do with illegal immigrants.  That's misdirection of effort in my opinion.

I've argued for quite a while that the most humane way to stop illegal immigrants from being a problem is to come down hard enough on the illegal employers that it is cost prohibitive to use the workers they employ.  Currently the system doesn't seem to punish the employers anywhere near as much as the employees . . . and that creates the whole situation that exists today.  You won't have a constant stream of people sneaking into the country to work if you don't have jobs ready for them when they get across the border.

That would be pushing unfair and burdensome regulations on small business and job creators.  Truly the only correct course of action is to eliminate all taxes and with the extra money the job creators in their infinite and divine wisdom will hire true americans and pay them appropriately as only the market can do.



just kidding, I agree with your idea.  If there was a real penalty to employing illegals, there might not be so many.  As the war on drugs has taught us, you cannot stop the supply, but you can cause an effect on the demand.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #130 on: November 17, 2016, 01:40:42 PM »
Quote
I've argued for quite a while that the most humane way to stop illegal immigrants from being a problem is to come down hard enough on the illegal employers that it is cost prohibitive to use the workers they employ.

Yeah, I never saw the logic in attacking the problem through the demand side.  Eliminate the supply of jobs, and the problem goes away.  In fact, it did just that during the great recession.  Net immigration was near zero (or negative, I forget). 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #131 on: November 17, 2016, 01:47:28 PM »
The best part of my idea is that you're morally in the clear.

Instead of punishing hard working people who desperately want to make ends meet, you're punishing well to do assholes who are trying to increase profit margins.  Which group does it feel better to punish?

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #132 on: November 17, 2016, 02:10:21 PM »
By the way, I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this, but if you have not, here is the globalization elephant!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/get-ready-to-see-this-globalization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again
http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2016/06/branko-milanovic-elephant-chart-brexit.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37542494

3 links for the same thing, because if you're like me, there's some news sites you are suspicious of!

I hadn't seen that yet.  Thanks!  Interesting...

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #133 on: November 17, 2016, 02:50:46 PM »
I would go with the bold option, and disagree with the non-bold part at the end.  Yes it would cost us some money, most solutions to problems do.  The real questions are would it cost more or less than the current system and if more, then could it be paid for in a reasonable way.

So basically make it easier for the people who sneak into the theater than for the people who wait in the line like they're supposed to.  That's the solution to people sneaking in, make it easier for them to do it?  Why would anyone wait in line at that point?

If your answer is "They won't!  That's the great part! No more lines!"  Then we're right back to the original problem, only now the line is at both doors and you just are now paying for clerks to be inside moving around after the fact rather than at a booth at the front.  In addition, the metal detector is completely useless now too.

Quote
Eh, I don't really feel like arguing this point, it's not important anyway.  Let me just take different approach.  If you're really just stuck on the idea that undocumented immigrants need to be punished in order to deter others from doing the same thing in the future then why does the punishment have to be deportation?  Why can't it be a fine?  In fact, that actually sounds like a great way to pay for the costs that you seemed to be worried about up above.

Because if a punishment is just a fine, why would anyone wait for the proper authorization to come to the US?  If you're Swedish and want to immigrate here, why not just go to Mexico and hop the border since you'll just get a small fine and become a citizen anyway?  Those suckers who go through the regular process have to wait years!

I really don't understand your proposal for a system here.  We don't deport people who come in illegally and make them citizens instead, but we don't just let anyone in (no open borders).  What in the world is your ideal immigration system?  I can't make heads or tails of what you're getting at.  Or maybe you don't have a system in mind, and like just picking out isolated pieces of systems and criticizing them in a bubble.

AZDude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #134 on: November 17, 2016, 03:12:07 PM »
Trump's strongest supporters, uneducated white people, are those who are impacted the most from the lower wages and falling employment prospects delivered by illegal immigration.

Well to do whites do not care about immigration because the lower prices and abundance of cheap labor actually has a positive impact on their life.

If you are an uneducated white person, your job prospects are dimmer when there are loads of immigrants willing to do any job for minimum wage because even that is 1,000 times better than what they had in their country of origin. Even worse, there are barriers to getting into fields like construction because you would be the only white dude working with a bunch of Hispanics.

I can see their dilemma, although the funny thing is that poor white people probably have far more in common with their Hispanic neighbors than they do with upper middle class white people.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #135 on: November 17, 2016, 03:16:24 PM »
Trump's strongest supporters, uneducated white people, are those who are impacted the most from the lower wages and falling employment prospects delivered by illegal immigration.

Well to do whites do not care about immigration because the lower prices and abundance of cheap labor actually has a positive impact on their life.

If you are an uneducated white person, your job prospects are dimmer when there are loads of immigrants willing to do any job for minimum wage because even that is 1,000 times better than what they had in their country of origin. Even worse, there are barriers to getting into fields like construction because you would be the only white dude working with a bunch of Hispanics.

I can see their dilemma, although the funny thing is that poor white people probably have far more in common with their Hispanic neighbors than they do with upper middle class white people.

Please define "uneducated".  Thanks.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5653
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #136 on: November 17, 2016, 03:24:07 PM »
Let's just do this:

-Legalize everyone who is here now. It's way too complex (not to mention morally dubious) at this point to deal with deporting someone's grandma/mom/cousin/etc when 2/3 of the family are citizens and 1/3 aren't. That doesn't have to mean citizenship, but it should mean no worries about calling your landlord about mold because you're afraid of the INS, or your kids having to live with distant relatives so they can stay in the US while you get deported.

-Enforce the living crap out of both the border enforcement AND employer (after everyone here has had, say 6 months to get the paperwork done) ends of things so that it's very hard to get across the border or stay illegally, and fine the living hell out of any business caught employing someone without documentation. Businesses all across the country will freaking scream about that, c'est la vie.

-Greatly increase the number of visas and permanent resident cards given out every year.

Boom. Problem solved.

You are not going to get a lot of great jobs opening up, but then again, I don't think Trump (or anyone else with half a brain) believes that illegal immigration has anything to do with middle class jobs.

-Walt

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #137 on: November 17, 2016, 04:14:47 PM »
I think it is very funny how people think that an arbitrary line drawn in the dirt, or a river, or a fence put where you want it put make people feel that one side of this line can have a good life, for the most part.  Not have to worry so much about poverty, starvation etc.  But on the other side of this make believe line, people live in poverty and many other atrocities... such an odd concept to me.  We are all of this earth, we are all human, why cant we just learn to get along.  There would be more then enough resources to make sure everyone in this planet was taken care of, if a select few would stop hording the recourses so they can exchange it for a piece of paper with a number printed on it, which they then horde...

I don't know what happened to people working together for the betterment of society as a whole, or if that really ever happened, but it needs to.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #138 on: November 17, 2016, 05:33:42 PM »
@DoubleDown  Bingo!  And of course Americans for 2 centuries previously exclusively did all those jobs, like manufacturing, farm labor, janitorial/housekeeping, construction, etc  Of course they could do them again if the price was right.

No, that's never been true. There were indentured servants during our colony days, then there was slave labor (immigrants), then there were other immigrants of various "undesirable" ethnicities (Irish, Chinese, Russo-German, Hispanic) and these were always the people doing the dirty work. You're falling into the trap of viewing the past through rose-colored glasses.

P.S. Your claim earlier that you're a minority, a woman, and an immigrant does not mean that you can't be racist or sexist. I'm not trying to say that you are, but come on. People adopt the attitudes of the predominant culture all the time out of a sense of self-preservation. Women can be quite misogynistic, for example. If women everywhere decided not to slut-shame each other, it wouldn't be a thing anymore. Yet, women all over still decide that it's in their best interest to call each other sluts or whores for (perceived) promiscuity. There are plenty of examples of people in minorities selling each other out too. (Jewish people during WWII who tried to save themselves by selling out their neighbors, black people fighting for the Confederacy, etc.) That's not a shield. Again, I am not trying to say that you are any of these things, just that it doesn't really make your arguments stronger.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #139 on: November 17, 2016, 06:37:50 PM »
By the way, I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this, but if you have not, here is the globalization elephant!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/get-ready-to-see-this-globalization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again

http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2016/06/branko-milanovic-elephant-chart-brexit.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37542494

3 links for the same thing, because if you're like me, there's some news sites you are suspicious of!

Interesting chart. It shows that globalization has been a win for almost everybody, and the small minority who is worse off isn't even worse off by much!

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #140 on: November 17, 2016, 06:47:49 PM »
By the way, I'm sure a lot of you have already seen this, but if you have not, here is the globalization elephant!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-27/get-ready-to-see-this-globalization-elephant-chart-over-and-over-again

http://harvardpress.typepad.com/hup_publicity/2016/06/branko-milanovic-elephant-chart-brexit.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37542494

3 links for the same thing, because if you're like me, there's some news sites you are suspicious of!

Interesting chart. It shows that globalization has been a win for almost everybody, and the small minority who is worse off isn't even worse off by much!

Oh ya, great, fantastic "progress" there.

You're kidding, right?


Edit: I should clarify...  What if I told you that you could only use medical technology that only existed before 1988, or could only drive a car that was from 1988 (safety improvements much?...).   What if I told you that you couldn't get a raise for the next thirty years at your current job?  Would you leave?  Its not so much that someone would want to 'keep up with the Joneses', but rather, the consumer price index doesn't accurately track improvements and higher cost via technology (it compares a base model car to a base model car excluding hybrids, a desktop to a desktop excluding laptops, etc).  Since this is in real dollars (inflation is built in), it doesn't account for quite everything that has taken place.  If we are going to progress, we need to do so based on hard work and equality based in reality, not with handouts or artificially suppressing one group via litigation.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 06:53:56 PM by PriestTheRunner »

Brilliantine

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
  • Location: Redmond, WA
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #141 on: November 17, 2016, 07:42:53 PM »
So which is it? Is it the freeloading illegal immigrant leeching off of the social services, being all welfare queens?

Or is it the illegal immigrants stealing our jobs?

You can't have it both ways. If they have jobs, they are not freeloaders.

To Sol's original point, if as a working class American you lost your job because the job disappeared, it is usually not due to an immigrant, illegal or otherwise. It is due to the job moving somewhere else. Sometimes it is the Boeing job that moved from the last-remnants-of-labor-union Washington to business-friendly Carolina. Sometimes it is the Chrysler job that moved from Michigan to God-only-knows-where. But, ALWAYS, the benefits of that job movement are funneled into the pockets of the executives and the shareholders.

The main problem is, USA failed to redistribute the added value of globalization. ALL the "cost-savings" were claimed by the shareholders. In a real social democracy, the government would tax this newfound wealth so that the newly unemployed population could get new skills training, more childcare support, etc. But no. The American public, bless their entitled little individualistic hearts, is all for less taxation and smaller government. So, the working class were left behind.

Don't blame the immigrant because your slice of the pie got smaller. Your slice got smaller because the corporation found a way to profit more by replacing you with someone else overseas. And they got away with giving you nothing. They got away because you voted in the crooks who did a dog and pony show of "abortion, gun rights, law and order" while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #142 on: November 17, 2016, 08:14:19 PM »
The main problem is, USA failed to redistribute the added value of globalization. ALL the "cost-savings" were claimed by the shareholders. In a real social democracy, the government would tax this newfound wealth so that the newly unemployed population could get new skills training, more childcare support, etc. But no. The American public, bless their entitled little individualistic hearts, is all for less taxation and smaller government. So, the working class were left behind.

Don't blame the immigrant because your slice of the pie got smaller. Your slice got smaller because the corporation found a way to profit more by replacing you with someone else overseas. And they got away with giving you nothing. They got away because you voted in the crooks who did a dog and pony show of "abortion, gun rights, law and order" while giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest.

The best part is that some of the same people in this thread pretending to care so damn much about the "working class" when it comes to immigration are exactly the ones arguing in other threads for policies that fuck them over.

waltworks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5653
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #143 on: November 17, 2016, 09:07:53 PM »
Personally, I'm a (sort of) rich white straight guy. At this point I'm getting annoyed with the working class for not voting for their own interests, basically ever. So hey, you want to elect a billionaire who doesn't have any actual policy positions (at least not that anyone can discern) and will default to the standard Republican cut-taxes, laugh at evidence and science, and tell people what to do with their genitals stuff, just as a big f-you to the system in general?

Fine. You are probably voting for a bunch of stuff that will benefit me and not you.

I'm hoping Elon Musk has some high altitude sulfate dispersal planes all prepped and ready to go, though, because I want my kids to survive to have kids of their own someday.

-W
« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 09:33:52 PM by waltworks »

mtnrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Location: Frozen tundra in the Northeast
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #144 on: November 17, 2016, 09:22:34 PM »
I have sympathy for the anti-immigrant folks.  They've found some truths that libertarians don't recognize.  The US can only take in a limited number of immigrants

 - it's a strain on the system while they come up to speed
 - more importantly, it's a psychological strain on our culture while their identities merge with ours

Overall, immigration is a net economic good.  But we need to be aware of the costs.  And recognize that for just about anyone working in the US, there's someone better overseas who would happily come to the US and do your job for less cost.  So it's not only the execution of the job, it's the total national environment that makes the country.  Countries aren't just a container for companies and the people who work at them!

(The points are taken from memory, from the book _23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism_.)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #145 on: November 18, 2016, 04:49:35 AM »

I don't know what happened to people working together for the betterment of society as a whole, or if that really ever happened, but it needs to.

Yeah, that's never really happened.  I'm not certain people could be convinced to make it happen, either.  I'm not even certain it should happen, though I remain open to arguments.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #146 on: November 18, 2016, 05:45:52 AM »
I would go with the bold option, and disagree with the non-bold part at the end.  Yes it would cost us some money, most solutions to problems do.  The real questions are would it cost more or less than the current system and if more, then could it be paid for in a reasonable way.

So basically make it easier for the people who sneak into the theater than for the people who wait in the line like they're supposed to.  That's the solution to people sneaking in, make it easier for them to do it?  Why would anyone wait in line at that point?

If your answer is "They won't!  That's the great part! No more lines!"  Then we're right back to the original problem, only now the line is at both doors and you just are now paying for clerks to be inside moving around after the fact rather than at a booth at the front.  In addition, the metal detector is completely useless now too.

Quote
Eh, I don't really feel like arguing this point, it's not important anyway.  Let me just take different approach.  If you're really just stuck on the idea that undocumented immigrants need to be punished in order to deter others from doing the same thing in the future then why does the punishment have to be deportation?  Why can't it be a fine?  In fact, that actually sounds like a great way to pay for the costs that you seemed to be worried about up above.

Because if a punishment is just a fine, why would anyone wait for the proper authorization to come to the US?  If you're Swedish and want to immigrate here, why not just go to Mexico and hop the border since you'll just get a small fine and become a citizen anyway?  Those suckers who go through the regular process have to wait years!

I really don't understand your proposal for a system here.  We don't deport people who come in illegally and make them citizens instead, but we don't just let anyone in (no open borders).  What in the world is your ideal immigration system?  I can't make heads or tails of what you're getting at.  Or maybe you don't have a system in mind, and like just picking out isolated pieces of systems and criticizing them in a bubble.

What are you talking about?  Why would it necessarily be easier for the people who are already here?  We get to design the pathway to citizenship however we want.  If we want to put them at the end of the (hopefully newly improved, shorter) line then fine, let's do that.  If you want to do all of the security checks that are normally required then fine, let's do that.  If we want to make them pay the normal fees plus extra because they came here before they were supposed to then fine, let's do that.  If you want to require that they've held a job for a certain amount of time before they can apply then fine, let's do that.  If you want to deter others from coming here illegally by punishing those who do then fine, let's do that.  If you want to improve border security at the same time that we're doing all this then fine, let's do that.  None of this requires deporting people.

Let me ask you something.  Have you ever sat down and thought about why you want to deport people and then thought about how you might accomplish those same goals without deporting people?  It's sounds like it would be a useful exercise since you live in a country with other people who don't want to deport people.

I jest of course, because that's what we just did together.  I asked questions to get at the underlying goals that you were trying to accomplish by deporting people and then offered alternative solutions to accomplish the same goals.  But all you heard is that I want open border for some reason, even though I've never said that.  In fact, just so we're clear, here's the closest I actually came to espousing a specific system.

I just don't see why we can't take steps to further secure our borders, improve the currently broken immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for those already here all at the same time.

No, I'm not saying we should have open borders now, I'm trying to accomplish your goals in a way that is acceptable to me and others like me who don't want to deport people.  Personally, I think this is the biggest problem we have in politics right now.  For every goal that you're trying to accomplish by deporting people I can think of an alternative way to accomplish that same goal, but you don't seem to be interested.  It gives the impression that you haven't actually thought through this issue and/or you have some other unstated reason for wanting to deport people.  I'm not saying either of those things are true, but it's the impression that I (and probably others like me) get.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #147 on: November 18, 2016, 06:27:00 AM »
Personally, I'm a (sort of) rich white straight guy. At this point I'm getting annoyed with the working class for not voting for their own interests, basically ever. So hey, you want to elect a billionaire who doesn't have any actual policy positions (at least not that anyone can discern) and will default to the standard Republican cut-taxes, laugh at evidence and science, and tell people what to do with their genitals stuff, just as a big f-you to the system in general?

Fine. You are probably voting for a bunch of stuff that will benefit me and not you.

I'm hoping Elon Musk has some high altitude sulfate dispersal planes all prepped and ready to go, though, because I want my kids to survive to have kids of their own someday.

-W

As far as voting against economic self interest, I always think of this picture:


Proud Foot

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #148 on: November 18, 2016, 07:56:48 AM »
Trump's strongest supporters, uneducated white people, are those who are impacted the most from the lower wages and falling employment prospects delivered by illegal immigration.

Well to do whites do not care about immigration because the lower prices and abundance of cheap labor actually has a positive impact on their life.

If you are an uneducated white person, your job prospects are dimmer when there are loads of immigrants willing to do any job for minimum wage because even that is 1,000 times better than what they had in their country of origin. Even worse, there are barriers to getting into fields like construction because you would be the only white dude working with a bunch of Hispanics.

I can see their dilemma, although the funny thing is that poor white people probably have far more in common with their Hispanic neighbors than they do with upper middle class white people.

Please define "uneducated".  Thanks.

I am not sure how he meant it in his post, but most of the time when you hear "uneducated" it is referring to the amount of schooling/degrees that one has.  I would argue that this is not a good metric to use although it is an easy one to find and I don't know what would be a better one.  I grew up in a rural farming community where most adults had no more than an associates or trade degree but many were very successful.  Those are areas where you need a strong work ethic and experience to be successful rather than an education and therefore there is not much incentive to obtain a higher education. 

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1142
Re: anti-immigrant Republicans, please help me understand
« Reply #149 on: November 18, 2016, 07:59:00 AM »
I would go with the bold option, and disagree with the non-bold part at the end.  Yes it would cost us some money, most solutions to problems do.  The real questions are would it cost more or less than the current system and if more, then could it be paid for in a reasonable way.

So basically make it easier for the people who sneak into the theater than for the people who wait in the line like they're supposed to.  That's the solution to people sneaking in, make it easier for them to do it?  Why would anyone wait in line at that point?

If your answer is "They won't!  That's the great part! No more lines!"  Then we're right back to the original problem, only now the line is at both doors and you just are now paying for clerks to be inside moving around after the fact rather than at a booth at the front.  In addition, the metal detector is completely useless now too.

Quote
Eh, I don't really feel like arguing this point, it's not important anyway.  Let me just take different approach.  If you're really just stuck on the idea that undocumented immigrants need to be punished in order to deter others from doing the same thing in the future then why does the punishment have to be deportation?  Why can't it be a fine?  In fact, that actually sounds like a great way to pay for the costs that you seemed to be worried about up above.

Because if a punishment is just a fine, why would anyone wait for the proper authorization to come to the US?  If you're Swedish and want to immigrate here, why not just go to Mexico and hop the border since you'll just get a small fine and become a citizen anyway?  Those suckers who go through the regular process have to wait years!

I really don't understand your proposal for a system here.  We don't deport people who come in illegally and make them citizens instead, but we don't just let anyone in (no open borders).  What in the world is your ideal immigration system?  I can't make heads or tails of what you're getting at.  Or maybe you don't have a system in mind, and like just picking out isolated pieces of systems and criticizing them in a bubble.

What are you talking about?  Why would it necessarily be easier for the people who are already here?  We get to design the pathway to citizenship however we want.  If we want to put them at the end of the (hopefully newly improved, shorter) line then fine, let's do that.  If you want to do all of the security checks that are normally required then fine, let's do that.  If we want to make them pay the normal fees plus extra because they came here before they were supposed to then fine, let's do that.  If you want to require that they've held a job for a certain amount of time before they can apply then fine, let's do that.  If you want to deter others from coming here illegally by punishing those who do then fine, let's do that.  If you want to improve border security at the same time that we're doing all this then fine, let's do that.  None of this requires deporting people.

Let me ask you something.  Have you ever sat down and thought about why you want to deport people and then thought about how you might accomplish those same goals without deporting people?  It's sounds like it would be a useful exercise since you live in a country with other people who don't want to deport people.

I jest of course, because that's what we just did together.  I asked questions to get at the underlying goals that you were trying to accomplish by deporting people and then offered alternative solutions to accomplish the same goals.  But all you heard is that I want open border for some reason, even though I've never said that.  In fact, just so we're clear, here's the closest I actually came to espousing a specific system.

I just don't see why we can't take steps to further secure our borders, improve the currently broken immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for those already here all at the same time.

No, I'm not saying we should have open borders now, I'm trying to accomplish your goals in a way that is acceptable to me and others like me who don't want to deport people.  Personally, I think this is the biggest problem we have in politics right now.  For every goal that you're trying to accomplish by deporting people I can think of an alternative way to accomplish that same goal, but you don't seem to be interested.  It gives the impression that you haven't actually thought through this issue and/or you have some other unstated reason for wanting to deport people.  I'm not saying either of those things are true, but it's the impression that I (and probably others like me) get.

The reason I'm down for deporting, is because without it we essentially have open borders.

Pretend you're considering coming to the US. 

Option 1, go through all of the paperwork and wait in line to get a visa to live here, and wait for citizenship once you're on the list.  This will take awhile.

Option 2, hop the border.  You get to live here off the books until you decide you want to be a citizen, then apply without fear of any consequences.

Why in the world would anyone pick option 1 in this case?  If you know there's a good chance you'll just be shipped back if you sneak in, you might be more likely to try to get in the official way.  Additionally, what do we do with the people who hop the border, but don't pass the test for us wanting them here? 

As a scaled down example, let's say there's one spot left in the country.  There's someone who came over illegally who has no criminal background, but doesn't have a job or any marketable skills, and has 3 kids.  There's another person who just submitted their application for citizenship from India who is a medical doctor, and has a hospital that's already offered him a job if he can get citizenship.  Do we deport the illegal person, or do we tell the medical doctor he's got to wait another year because someone already snuck over?

There are a finite number of immigrants the US can handle at a time.  Why not have them all go through the same process to see if they're actually wanted/needed here? 

If you want to propose we do a one time "hey everyone, if you're in the US right now you're good, but from now on people coming in will be deported" I could maybe get behind that.  It gets us over the practical hurdle of tracking everyone down who's already here, while still discouraging people from breaking the law as their first act in our country.