The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Sailor Sam on June 26, 2018, 08:28:40 PM
-
Bottom Line Up Front: I am a military officer under the Department of Homeland Security, and I increasingly think I need to choose between my commission and my morals.
Today I heard a report on NPR about family separation at the border. The topic wasn’t surprising, and honestly my horror has numbed out to a sort of dull resignation. Today was a new horror, though. Children of so called ‘tender age’ who cannot be reunited with their parents, because U.S. officials have no idea who their parents are. The parents are not provided the children’s immigration numbers during processing, the children are too young to trace their parents from their end (sometimes so young they don’t know their parents have names past ‘mama’ and ‘papa’), and voilà - something seen as a humanitarian crisis on both sides of the aisle is made a little more evil.
On top of all that horror, the travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court.
For much of my adult life I’ve insisted that national pride is good, as long as the pride is humble and doesn’t descend into nationalism. Accordingly, I believe my country is one of the greats, but aware there are many other great nations in the world. I am proud that my country is a destination for those suffering oppression and instability in their birth countries, but aware every wave of immigration has triggered a wave of racial or national hatred. I believe my choice of national service is a high calling, but aware that the US military has made it’s own grave mistakes and evil proclamations. I believe Trump is staggeringly unqualified, but I’m aware writing off all Republican votes as racist is its own form of evil.
I believed all these patriotic awareness meant I could continue my career as a military officer, even under a CIC I vehemently disagree with. Instead, I’d live inside the belly of the beast while ensuring my Command remained a bright spot of morality and compassion. Plus, I figured if everyone who believed differently fled, we’d be up shit creek almost instantaneously.
Today though, the double whammy of even more immigration outrages and the upholding of the travel ban, I’m suddenly wonder if I'm more akin to those German churchgoer during WWII. Steadily increasing the volume of their hymns in order to drown out the cries of the he boxcar full of Jews sitting on the sidetrack. Or, perhaps I'm a frog in a nice comfortable pot, just starting to marvel at the startling heat of the water.
Can I continue to claim personal honor and personal morality, while holding a commission from a governmental Department that's disregarding both honor and morality?
-
OMG, Sammy, I have no idea how to help, as I know hugs are verboten. May I just say that I love how much you care? You are a fine human being.
-
There are quite a number of differences. To start with, you have a free press. While the internet has made the free press everywhere somewhat more anal, with poorer reporting and less of one of the fundamental institutions of democracy, it’s still there. You are able to get the information.
Secondly, this problem has occurred as part of reuniting children with parents - a reversal of a worse policy. All democracies make bad decisions. It’s what happens next that shows how good a nation is. We have all made terrible decisions about our own indigenous peoples, about immigrants, about our environment in the past, and have worked to reverse those with evil outcomes. It may take some time for the current fiasco to work through, and it does take many years for some evils to be righted.
Today, there was a survey out about the top 10 dangerous countries for women - https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/the-world-s-10-most-dangerous-countries-for-women-20180626-p4znrs.html - and for some extraordinary reason, it includes the USA. This is clearly untrue - I can think of a number of other countries where I would be less safe, that aren’t on the list. The reason I think it includes the USA is because people can speak out, because you have a vibrant democracy, because your citizens feel there’s a problem that they can work together on.
-
What are the repercussions for walking away?
-
Good questions.
Tentative answers from one citizen's viewpoint, obviously just fodder for your own decisions:
1. Retain your commission unless ordered to directly perform an unequivocally immoral act.
2. If you must resign, do so loudly. Such resignations have more impact when publicly noted and discussed.
I met a former US diplomatic officer who resigned in protest when the US made clear it was going to invade Iraq. Said resignation was about 1 year prior to normal retirement age; I assume he lost a substantial pension amount. He felt that the rationale under which he was representing the country had been fatally undermined.
He and two others publicly announced their resignations via something like letter to New York Times editor; would probably have been Twitter these days, I guess, with a link to more detailed letter posted somewhere. I met him after he wrote a book 3 years later. IIRC the book was not focused on the resignation story but rather was primarily an explanation of how normal diplomacy works and why it's important.
One thing he was conflicted about was whether resigning was in fact best. He felt there were legit arguments on both sides, and stated respect for colleagues whose reason for staying was that their remaining work was arguably more important than ever. Not sure where the value-of-staying line is for Coast Guard.
If your vessel interdicts "illegal" travelers from a travel ban country, can you place them in federal custody but secretly leak the information of their whereabouts and identity to interested parties such as media, pro bono lawyers, etc? Can you inform them of any rights that they have, and make sure they are treated relatively humanely for the time being? Can you keep secret records of their presence, identity and treatment for use in overturning the ban or ensuring future amelioration of their cases?
-
I have no answers.
It makes me glad to know that members of our military, especially officers with decision making power, care so deeply for refugees and immigrants. This is especially true for the Coast Guard, who is perhaps more likely than most to interact with refugees and immigrants as part of day to day military life.
At the same time, I understand the desire to break associations - to not be part of something that increasingly hurts and confuses you.
-
I am so sorry.
All I can say is, please stay and continue to fight with integrity for as long as you can. This regime must be stopped.
-
I'm so sorry, Sam. It's a personal decision, and I don't think it'd be fair of anyone to judge you either way. I will say that I am glad our service members include people of different viewpoints, and, as Kris notes, people with integrity. I was very good friends the US embassy consul who resigned and submitted the affidavit demonstrating that the Muslim waiver process is a sham. He has truly been a standout person for years -- someone tons of his peers always respected and we knew/know he will continue to make a huge impact in life. This guy has f-ing unassailable integrity in my book. Anyway, he was in a different position from you, but made the decision that was right for him in what he was being asked to do.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
-
I'm really sorry that you find yourself in this situation. I'm sure, having followed your posts on here, that the USCG is the better for having you in a position of responsibility, but I know it's hard to reconcile being part of something, another part of which is doing considerable harm.
I cannot claim to offer any useful insight. I did walk away from a sponsored engineering position with the UK MOD after Iraq, but that was basically consequence-free - I had no obligations to them and wasn't even technically employed at the time, as they used short-term contracts for summer placements. I just left the graduate position offer on the table and went and got another job that wasn't procuring equipment for the military. Nothing like the gravity of the situation you are in.
I really hope you are able to come to a decision which you can be content with.
-
Today was a new horror, though. Children of so called ‘tender age’ who cannot be reunited with their parents, because U.S. officials have no idea who their parents are. The parents are not provided the children’s immigration numbers during processing, the children are too young to trace their parents from their end (sometimes so young they don’t know their parents have names past ‘mama’ and ‘papa’), and voilà - something seen as a humanitarian crisis on both sides of the aisle is made a little more evil.
This has been what has caused me to lose my shit from the very beginning. My kid is that age - he doesn't know my name, he doesn't even know his own last name much less his address and phone number. I have heard that 23andMe is donating DNA testing kits to help reunite the families, if that helps at all. It's just rumors so far, I need to take time later to figure out who to call to demand that this be a thing that actually happens on the scale we need.
Today though, the double whammy of even more immigration outrages and the upholding of the travel ban, I’m suddenly wonder if I'm more akin to those German churchgoer during WWII. Steadily increasing the volume of their hymns in order to drown out the cries of the he boxcar full of Jews sitting on the sidetrack. Or, perhaps I'm a frog in a nice comfortable pot, just starting to marvel at the startling heat of the water.
I wonder the same thing. I'm going to a march this weekend, but part of me wonders if doing that gets my name on a list (not that it's going to stop me now, but will it cause me to be separated from my child in the future if I get sent somewhere for my "treasonous" behavior). That list won't matter now but at the rate we're going what will our country look like in a couple years? Then I tell myself I'm being overly paranoid. The problem is I won't know until years from now, after all of this has played out. All of us are stuck making the best decisions we can now with the information we have, shitty and incomplete as that information might be.
For now, I agree with Kris - stay and continue to fight with integrity for as long as you can. It's not like you're closing your eyes to what's going on or thinking Facebooks likes = prayers. Reexamine your FIRE numbers without your pension and what your budget would look like if you left your job tomorrow (assuming you got another decent paying job in the not too distant future). Plan, but don't feel like you have to move on those plans yet. And if you do have to leave, do so loudly.
-
I wonder the same thing. I'm going to a march this weekend, but part of me wonders if doing that gets my name on a list (not that it's going to stop me now, but will it cause me to be separated from my child in the future if I get sent somewhere for my "treasonous" behavior). That list won't matter now but at the rate we're going what will our country look like in a couple years? Then I tell myself I'm being overly paranoid. The problem is I won't know until years from now, after all of this has played out. All of us are stuck making the best decisions we can now with the information we have, shitty and incomplete as that information might be.
I've worried about this since a life event a few years ago...that I'd be an easy target of a witch hunt.
But now I think I'd rather be on that list then let these things happen without saying anything.
I'm taking off time on Friday to go to a rally to help a democrat congressional campaign. We have a vulnerable Republican seat- it needs to be turned.
To the original poster: is your commissioning oath the same as the one officers in other military branches take? Your oath is to uphold the constitution, not to follow the President (when they do not intersect). Serve with integrity and do what you can. Even though you can't just put a stop to this, be a voice so that others you work with also see the injustices. Help to lead the change, even if it is in a small way. And do your best to comfort the migrants who you come across who have been trapped in this inhumane system. This is a sad sad chapter is US history.
-
... I’m suddenly wonder if I'm more akin to those German churchgoer during WWII. Steadily increasing the volume of their hymns in order to drown out the cries of the he boxcar full of Jews sitting on the sidetrack. Or, perhaps I'm a frog in a nice comfortable pot, just starting to marvel at the startling heat of the water.
There was a good article today in the Irish Times that touches on this topic. You might be interested to read it for some food for thought: Fintan O’Toole: Trial runs for fascism are in full flow (https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375)
It's really hard to understand when and how to draw a line, I think. To a certain extent it also depends on your financial situation. Can't remember if you're FI or not. What are the implications for you financially if you resign? What are the implications if you don't resign but do start pushing back and making a noise, insofar as that's possible and, I don't know, useful? (I really don't know what form that kind of thing would take and possibly watched too much television as a kid but maybe there is something that could make a difference.) If you start pushing back, is that bad for your career, is there a chance you could be discharged, would it affect pension etc.? Not especially looking for answers to these questions, by the way, just throwing them out there as something to think about.
-
There is one bit of comfort to you: you are not alone. There are countless examples in history of people like you who are placed in difficult situations, and forced to decide what to do. Perhaps do some reading to find some of them. I'm sure you're not the only one currently serving who is struggling with this either. I can not imagine how the people actually working with those children feel.
As an American citizen, one thing that comforts me is the knowledge that our military is unlikely to blindly follow any president into a takeover similar to Turkey's recent events. If you can do nothing else, standing firm against the tide can do a lot.
Re the babies and toddlers - we do have DNA testing available. They'll have to DNA test all the children, and then all the parents with children that age. We should be able to match up a good number at least. Is it ideal? No. But it's a start. The US will be atoning for our cruelty for a long time, whether we know it or not.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
-
meerkat - I feel the same way, on so many levels. Even if they do DNA testing and successfully match up every kid with every parent (like that will ever happen), it still does not erase the trauma that these families have been put through. How do you deal with the fact that an institution has, in all of our names, done something so unspeakably cruel. When I heard that nursing mothers were being separated from their children I had to go and cry. I just can't even imagine what I would do if my nursling was taken from me.
As for the marches, I've been having the fear that this administration is totally the type to put people on lists and come to the same conclusion as you. I also know what kinds of "security" devices are out there to track people, and almost certainly deployed by not only our government but others too. But I'm still going to march.
This has all been making me think of The Hunger Games, actually. In the (third?) movie there's a scene where people rush a dam to destroy it and hurt the government. They know that for pretty much all of them it's going to be a suicide mission and they do it anyway. That scene left me so hollow and since seeing it I've been asking myself, what's the point at which that is worth it? I have kids. At what point is it worth risking my freedom and their safety to fight injustice? I decided that the risk of not taking action has to outweigh that of taking action and this, I think, is one of those moments. I cannot go quietly about my life and accept that this is happening in my country, that this is happening "on my behalf" by my government. On behalf of my kids by their government. I do not think the government is serving us anymore (and, realistically, hasn't been for quite a while) so staying silent will only make things worse. This is (one of the places) where I'm taking a stand and saying absolutely not. This is one of the times and situations when making a stand, even at high cost, is worth it to me.
Sam, does that help? To know that there are others, outside of the military, who are also going to be "fighting" this fight? I think you should stay in as long as you can, trying to change things when and where you can, until the point at which it either becomes untenable for you to uphold this system, or when you are asked to turn a blind eye or carry out immoral actions. Then quit, loudly and vociferously. We'll all be with you.
Out of curiosity, what's Petrie's thought and opinion on this? She's also military, so I'm assuming the two of you have had conversations in the quiet dark together.
-
I understand resigning a post when ordered to do something that contradicts moral behavior. I understand resigning when problems and abuses are obscure or unknown, and a loud resignation from a person of character draws attention to those problems and helps facilitate change.
I don't understand good people handing the reins over to those that are willing to perform ill deeds, whether by order or by desire. As long as you have it in you to take a stand, and as long as it doesn't place you at risk of harm, please do so. As you say, if everybody like-minded fled, we'd be up the creek immediately.
-
I am on the opposite side of most issues from you I suspect, however the method of good decision making stays the same.
- ensure you have a well developed conscience and know right from wrong
- examine your own choices and responsibilities. You have no ownership of other's choices. 'circle of control', one of MMM's better posts
- make a principled decision and execute it
- keep calm and carry on. feeding an internal doubt/rage monster only hurts yourself.
Good luck
-
When the goose-stepping starts down Pennsylvania Ave. we'll need people on the inside of the system to help the Resistance.
-
Bottom Line Up Front: I am a military officer under the Department of Homeland Security, and I increasingly think I need to choose between my commission and my morals.
Today I heard a report on NPR about family separation at the border. The topic wasn’t surprising, and honestly my horror has numbed out to a sort of dull resignation. Today was a new horror, though. Children of so called ‘tender age’ who cannot be reunited with their parents, because U.S. officials have no idea who their parents are. The parents are not provided the children’s immigration numbers during processing, the children are too young to trace their parents from their end (sometimes so young they don’t know their parents have names past ‘mama’ and ‘papa’), and voilà - something seen as a humanitarian crisis on both sides of the aisle is made a little more evil.
On top of all that horror, the travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court.
For much of my adult life I’ve insisted that national pride is good, as long as the pride is humble and doesn’t descend into nationalism. Accordingly, I believe my country is one of the greats, but aware there are many other great nations in the world. I am proud that my country is a destination for those suffering oppression and instability in their birth countries, but aware every wave of immigration has triggered a wave of racial or national hatred. I believe my choice of national service is a high calling, but aware that the US military has made it’s own grave mistakes and evil proclamations. I believe Trump is staggeringly unqualified, but I’m aware writing off all Republican votes as racist is its own form of evil.
I believed all these patriotic awareness meant I could continue my career as a military officer, even under a CIC I vehemently disagree with. Instead, I’d live inside the belly of the beast while ensuring my Command remained a bright spot of morality and compassion. Plus, I figured if everyone who believed differently fled, we’d be up shit creek almost instantaneously.
Today though, the double whammy of even more immigration outrages and the upholding of the travel ban, I’m suddenly wonder if I'm more akin to those German churchgoer during WWII. Steadily increasing the volume of their hymns in order to drown out the cries of the he boxcar full of Jews sitting on the sidetrack. Or, perhaps I'm a frog in a nice comfortable pot, just starting to marvel at the startling heat of the water.
Can I continue to claim personal honor and personal morality, while holding a commission from a governmental Department that's disregarding both honor and morality?
It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis. I know there are differences but President Trump has unparalleled obstructionism from so many levels of Government. His voting base does not believe in Open borders. We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate. As an Officer from with DHS, please tell us how we can accommodate all of the refugees that come here. Also tell me why they should not go through the many US embassies all over the world instead of coming directly here first? I have been curious about how they can afford to convoy that far, past so many embassies.
-
When the goose-stepping starts down Pennsylvania Ave. we'll need people on the inside of the system to help the Resistance.
What is the desired end result of your resistance? What regulations do you want to see passed? No sense having a mob of angry people if you have no direction.
-
When the goose-stepping starts down Pennsylvania Ave. we'll need people on the inside of the system to help the Resistance.
This. To affect change, be the change. I'm sure you are not alone.
***
I haven't felt this way in a while, but feels like history is being made right now. 9/11 was Earth shattering, but the political climate today feels like it's breeding more fear and is getting to point where it's potentially more explosive.
-
When the goose-stepping starts down Pennsylvania Ave. we'll need people on the inside of the system to help the Resistance.
What is the desired end result of your resistance? What regulations do you want to see passed? No sense having a mob of angry people if you have no direction.
The actions taken depend on what depths the current administration sinks to. We might just organize and vote to get President Dumpster Fire out of office. We might have to organize the National Parks into a system of safe houses to hide brown people from Jeff Sessions and his ilk.
The desired result is Trump gone, the Alt-right driven back into their mothers' basements, and a return to respecting the Constitution.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Get your facts straight and don't let yourself be manipulated by the mainstream media. SCOTUS made the right decision.
-
It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis. I know there are differences but President Trump has unparalleled obstructionism from so many levels of Government. His voting base does not believe in Open borders. We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate. As an Officer from with DHS, please tell us how we can accommodate all of the refugees that come here. Also tell me why they should not go through the many US embassies all over the world instead of coming directly here first? I have been curious about how they can afford to convoy that far, past so many embassies.
@ematicic, old mate, we agree on much. I fully and wholeheartedly agree that immigration must be monitored and regulated for the continued functioning of United States. Open borders between two nations with deeply unbalanced equities and prosperities would be like drinking sea water - the sodium osmosis would kill the organism.
But my post isn't specifically about immigration. It's about trying to strike the moral path when all the options are deeply grey. It sounds like the policies causing my angst are not causing you angst, so it's unassailable for me to request your sympathy. Yet, you're intelligent enough and resourceful enough to find your way onto a forum that insists members refuse their first thoughts, and give even their second thoughts a stern weather eye. Essentially, a successful MMM poster is a deep thinker. Given your maturity, surely you offer empathy even when you don't personally feel the moral noose. Why the aggression, brah?
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Get your facts straight and don't let yourself be manipulated by the mainstream media. SCOTUS made the right decision.
Sarcasm? Trump himself made it abundantly clear what the goal was.
-
It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis. I know there are differences but President Trump has unparalleled obstructionism from so many levels of Government. His voting base does not believe in Open borders. We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate. As an Officer from with DHS, please tell us how we can accommodate all of the refugees that come here. Also tell me why they should not go through the many US embassies all over the world instead of coming directly here first? I have been curious about how they can afford to convoy that far, past so many embassies.
Well said. There seems to be a lot of anti-American sentiment out there from presumed Americans that are more concerned about illegal aliens than American citizens. I'm not part of Trump's base mostly because of healthcare, but I certainly support him on immigration. It's about time we had a strong leader with some backbone on the issue after the the weakness from previous failed presidents.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Get your facts straight and don't let yourself be manipulated by the mainstream media. SCOTUS made the right decision.
Sarcasm? Trump himself made it abundantly clear what the goal was.
Trump didn't have a vote on SCOTUS, sorry to have to tell you that.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Get your facts straight and don't let yourself be manipulated by the mainstream media. SCOTUS made the right decision.
Sarcasm? Trump himself made it abundantly clear what the goal was.
Trump didn't have a vote on SCOTUS, sorry to have to tell you that.
One non sequitur after another...
-
Sammy, like many above, I also think it's important to have good people inside. There is no black and white with complex issues, and where there are grey areas what makes the difference to the people caught up in it all is the quality of the officers and the day-to-day decisions they make. Because you are capable of changing a culture for the better, (you've done it on your ship) it seems to me like it's better for your country if you hang around.
-
No easy answer - is it better to fight from within or from outside?
-
Also tell me why they should not go through the many US embassies all over the world instead of coming directly here first? I have been curious about how they can afford to convoy that far, past so many embassies.
Sometimes I feel like people are being intentionally obtuse. Why don't they go through a US embassy abroad? Because you literally cannot apply for asylum at a US embassy or consulate. Under US law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States, or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry; embassies and consulates do not count for purposes of this law. Most of the people coming up from Central America are claiming asylum and, under our country's laws, they are required to show up at our border to make that claim! Maybe reverse the way you look at the convoy -- their circumstances in their home country are so terribly unsafe that they are willing to make a very treacherous, high-risk journey just for the possibility that the US will grant them asylum. All that shit they have to go through to get here is worth it because the alternative is extreme suffering or death in their homeland.
-
For Canada, refugees are processed abroad, asylum seekers show up at a border crossing/point of entry. I imagine the terms are the same for the US.
-
Warlord, I'm glad you're in my gang.
-
There are quite a number of differences. To start with, you have a free press. While the internet has made the free press everywhere somewhat more anal, with poorer reporting and less of one of the fundamental institutions of democracy, it’s still there. You are able to get the information.
Secondly, this problem has occurred as part of reuniting children with parents - a reversal of a worse policy. All democracies make bad decisions. It’s what happens next that shows how good a nation is. We have all made terrible decisions about our own indigenous peoples, about immigrants, about our environment in the past, and have worked to reverse those with evil outcomes. It may take some time for the current fiasco to work through, and it does take many years for some evils to be righted.
Today, there was a survey out about the top 10 dangerous countries for women - https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/the-world-s-10-most-dangerous-countries-for-women-20180626-p4znrs.html - and for some extraordinary reason, it includes the USA. This is clearly untrue - I can think of a number of other countries where I would be less safe, that aren’t on the list. The reason I think it includes the USA is because people can speak out, because you have a vibrant democracy, because your citizens feel there’s a problem that they can work together on.
I can think of numerous reasons for the USA to be on this list, chiefly our maternal mortality rate, which is climbing as other first world countries drop. We are actually more unsafe, in some states than some third world countries.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Get your facts straight and don't let yourself be manipulated by the mainstream media. SCOTUS made the right decision.
Sarcasm? Trump himself made it abundantly clear what the goal was.
Trump didn't have a vote on SCOTUS, sorry to have to tell you that.
One non sequitur after another...
I'm sorry that you do not understand. Oh well...
-
There are quite a number of differences. To start with, you have a free press. While the internet has made the free press everywhere somewhat more anal, with poorer reporting and less of one of the fundamental institutions of democracy, it’s still there. You are able to get the information.
Secondly, this problem has occurred as part of reuniting children with parents - a reversal of a worse policy. All democracies make bad decisions. It’s what happens next that shows how good a nation is. We have all made terrible decisions about our own indigenous peoples, about immigrants, about our environment in the past, and have worked to reverse those with evil outcomes. It may take some time for the current fiasco to work through, and it does take many years for some evils to be righted.
Today, there was a survey out about the top 10 dangerous countries for women - https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/the-world-s-10-most-dangerous-countries-for-women-20180626-p4znrs.html - and for some extraordinary reason, it includes the USA. This is clearly untrue - I can think of a number of other countries where I would be less safe, that aren’t on the list. The reason I think it includes the USA is because people can speak out, because you have a vibrant democracy, because your citizens feel there’s a problem that they can work together on.
I can think of numerous reasons for the USA to be on this list, chiefly our maternal mortality rate, which is climbing as other first world countries drop. We are actually more unsafe, in some states than some third world countries.
But the top 10???? Let us think about it for a minute. Only 2 African nations are on the list - I'm sure there are a ton more that are much more unsafe for women than the USA - South Sudan? Somalia? Zimbabwe? What about the Pacific - Papua New Guinea? the Solomon Islands? or even the Philippines? Or Palestine? I'm sure you can think of a few more.
-
Well Palestine might not be in the 193 UN countries surveyed as it's an observer state. I don't know about the others -maybe they are no more dangerous for women than anyone else? Maybe it's about inequality in danger?? Anecdotally, I've been to Zimbabwe and felt safer than in South Africa :)
-
Well Palestine might not be in the 193 UN countries surveyed as it's an observer state. I don't know about the others -maybe they are no more dangerous for women than anyone else? Maybe it's about inequality in danger?? Anecdotally, I've been to Zimbabwe and felt safer than in South Africa :)
I certainly wasn't trying to be definitive - just to name a few nations where a woman may be more unsafe than in USA, off the top of my head. I think I've made my point though.
-
Sailor Sam,
Unless you are personally doing something that you find morally objectionable, I think you should stay. The children won't be reunited any easier because you walk. The border situation has always been a mess as it relates to children coming across the border - whether accompanied or not. There are things NPR could have reported regarding the treatment of children coming across the border in every administration.
For what it's worth, I believe the Supreme Court reached the correct decision regarding the 'travel ban.' I find Donald Trump's rhetoric repulsive, but you can't have the Supreme Court interpreting the external words and statements of presidents to determine whether to uphold their executive orders. That would be untenable. Yes, it's galling when the President openly states that he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country, but the opposite ruling would have opened a larger can of worms. Had the SC ruled the other way then every executive order would be subject to scrutiny based on any extrinsic evidence critics could find. You would have a situation where the exact same action would be allowed for President A but not for President B because of a tweet, speech, college paper, testimony of a college roommate, etc. That's not the job of the Supreme Court. The job of the SC is to determine if a president's action is constitutional...not to determine the level of animus required to negate what would otherwise be a constitutional action. The former is within the Court's wheelhouse, the latter is not.
TL;DR: Stay. Staying isn't appeasement and you can do more good from within. Just don't cross any personal moral 'red lines.'
-
For Canada, refugees are processed abroad, asylum seekers show up at a border crossing/point of entry. I imagine the terms are the same for the US.
Claiming asylum sounds the same -- the person must be physically present in the United States or at our border or a port of entry. Embassies and consulates do not qualify for this test, so it is impossible for them to claim asylum before they get here. While the United States processes some refugees abroad, that is on a country-by-country basis and it currently does not process any refugee claims in the embassies in Central America.
-
Bottom Line Up Front: I am a military officer under the Department of Homeland Security, and I increasingly think I need to choose between my commission and my morals.
Today I heard a report on NPR about family separation at the border. The topic wasn’t surprising, and honestly my horror has numbed out to a sort of dull resignation. Today was a new horror, though. Children of so called ‘tender age’ who cannot be reunited with their parents, because U.S. officials have no idea who their parents are. The parents are not provided the children’s immigration numbers during processing, the children are too young to trace their parents from their end (sometimes so young they don’t know their parents have names past ‘mama’ and ‘papa’), and voilà - something seen as a humanitarian crisis on both sides of the aisle is made a little more evil.
On top of all that horror, the travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court.
For much of my adult life I’ve insisted that national pride is good, as long as the pride is humble and doesn’t descend into nationalism. Accordingly, I believe my country is one of the greats, but aware there are many other great nations in the world. I am proud that my country is a destination for those suffering oppression and instability in their birth countries, but aware every wave of immigration has triggered a wave of racial or national hatred. I believe my choice of national service is a high calling, but aware that the US military has made it’s own grave mistakes and evil proclamations. I believe Trump is staggeringly unqualified, but I’m aware writing off all Republican votes as racist is its own form of evil.
I believed all these patriotic awareness meant I could continue my career as a military officer, even under a CIC I vehemently disagree with. Instead, I’d live inside the belly of the beast while ensuring my Command remained a bright spot of morality and compassion. Plus, I figured if everyone who believed differently fled, we’d be up shit creek almost instantaneously.
Today though, the double whammy of even more immigration outrages and the upholding of the travel ban, I’m suddenly wonder if I'm more akin to those German churchgoer during WWII. Steadily increasing the volume of their hymns in order to drown out the cries of the he boxcar full of Jews sitting on the sidetrack. Or, perhaps I'm a frog in a nice comfortable pot, just starting to marvel at the startling heat of the water.
Can I continue to claim personal honor and personal morality, while holding a commission from a governmental Department that's disregarding both honor and morality?
On the whole it’s your honor at stake. But if you can do nothing and if nothing is getting better to balance it out in the foreseeable future, I recommend you GTFO. This from a retired Army Officer who’s both proud of his service. But lives with regrets that visit as regularly as the direct deposit pension. And not a few fond memories of making stands that made that pension somewhat smaller.
-
Don't let the mainstream media manipulate me. Put your country first. Have faith in the judicial system. Support the Constitution.
Pretty hard to have faith in the judicial system after the recent SCOTUS decision on the Muslim Ban.
It wasn't a Muslim ban. Get your facts straight and don't let yourself be manipulated by the mainstream media. SCOTUS made the right decision.
Sarcasm? Trump himself made it abundantly clear what the goal was.
Trump didn't have a vote on SCOTUS, sorry to have to tell you that.
If you ignore the whole 'stall the Supreme Court nomination until we get our guy in' thing...
-
I can imagine you doubt your career choices at this moment. Seems like you joined for the good reasons but now Trump's policies interfere with your moral values.I have cried after seeying and reading about the circumstances for the children and families.
Would you love job job without Trump/ the current orders? What do you expect will happen after Trump? (I'm afraid personally that the refugees crisis is a hard issue to solve, it will take many years. I hope our children will look back at it in shame.)
You make the comparison to WWII. My grandmother and mother were German, my grandfather Dutch during the war. My grandmother has told me we should make sure it never happens again and that I should do something before it is too late. Her family didn't vote for Hitler but many did, believing he would make Germany better and that he wasn't such a bad guy, that it was a lot of talk. People didn't do much but talk when new regulations affected minorities, not them and at one point, it was too late.
Her brothers were forced to join the Hitler jugend, they pretended to be pro Nazi cause they had Jews hiding in the house. They had to act pro and the would get extra food coupons in high ranks. They also wanted higher ranks to plot 'mistakes' and 'accidents' when they were ordered to do things that harmed others. They would blame a real fanatic Nazi in the making for mistakes to prevent guys like that getting high ranks and making a chance to get selected for paid jobs. I guess they also did things that were not too pleasant or nice to protect their own. I'm not going to pretend I'm sure it was al heroic and well, I wasn't there. I can't judge them when they did, it was survival or not when it was too late.
One of them wanted to become a policeman later but was denied cause he had a good rank in the Hitler jugend during the war. That they were actually in a sort of small resistance group, could not be proven. Lot of finger pointing after the war of course. I know families that are still not liked in their village cause the grandfather made lots of money on the black food market over other people's backs or helped the Germans.
My grandfather was captured at the Dutch border and taken to a prison camp in the beginning of the war. The nazi's let all the Dutch military they had captured go at some point in 1940 or 41. They had the choices of joining the Germans or hard labour. Would they be captured again wearing a Dutch soldiers uniform, they would be shot instantly. Hitler came to my grandfather's prison camp for PR and my grandfather was part of a plan to kill Hitler during this visit. Some people chickened out tough and their plan failed. Grandpa was still angry about that, the could and should have killed him before things got worse.
Grandpa has build roads in Germany under horrible conditions during the war.
My grandmother did witness a hanging by accident while foraging for extra food in a forest but relatively didn't suffer as much as others. Still, she was very traumatised. Grandpa was traumatised too. That affected their parenting and my mother's and aunt mental health and ability to have loving relationships (well, inability). The war and the trauma will stop in my children's generation.
The traumas that are caused now, will also affect 2 generations at least.
My advice for you, make a realistic judgement of what you can bear and how long. When you have to or choose to stay, make sure you have reliable people around you that won't screw you over ever (remember that you can't trust people when money or power is involved, avoid those looking for higher better paid ranks, bonuses etc). Should you receive orders that don't meet your personal moral values, you have the choice to make a statement or make a 'mistake'. For the latter, you need those reliable people around you. It is very possible that mistrust and keeping a close eye on the actions of others will start soon in the US military. Pro Trump or against camps. Cover your back.
Good luck making these decisions.
-
It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis.
Obama's review of vetting procedures for Iraqis was not a ban on the scale of the Trump administration's. It was a review of Special Immigrant Visa application procedures that only lasted 6 months.
If you care, here's a link that goes into more detail about why Trump can't just say "Obama did it too."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate.
I would love to see actual proof for this assertion.
-
It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis.
Obama's review of vetting procedures for Iraqis was not a ban on the scale of the Trump administration's. It was a review of Special Immigrant Visa application procedures that only lasted 6 months.
If you care, here's a link that goes into more detail about why Trump can't just say "Obama did it too."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate.
I would love to see actual proof for this assertion.
From ematicic? LOL!
-
As an American citizen, one thing that comforts me is the knowledge that our military is unlikely to blindly follow any president into a takeover similar to Turkey's recent events. If you can do nothing else, standing firm against the tide can do a lot.
Don't take too much comfort in this -- our military skews decidedly to the right, and has increasingly become the domain of religious evangelical types. Last I saw, Trump enjoys majority support among the military rank and file. The officers on the other hand, not so much.
-
@Mon€yp€nny, at first I was just going to say, "Great screen name!"
But your post was too profound for joking around. Thanks for posting.
-
But my post isn't specifically about immigration. It's about trying to strike the moral path when all the options are deeply grey.
I think all paths are gray. Some may be lighter, some darker, but there is NO perfect path for everyone. That is impossible. So the challenge comes to see the consequences, of either choice, and choose the one that is less wrong, or more right. One small decision at a time, building towards a mountain of choices for the good, the right, while acknowledging the imperfect, the mistakes, the failures. We, as human beings, are not infallible and trying to be will only cause us to fail.
At the same time, the lack of choice is a choice in itself. If you stand by and do not protest a wrong, then in some small way, you have committed that wrong. Standing still and silent is not the answer.
This is how we will better ourselves and fix what has gone wrong: by making small choices, striving for the good. By protesting wrong choices, and trying to heal the harm done. By repenting when we fail, and offering amends. By turning around when we have gone astray. By showing compassion and respect for all, regardless of anything else. That doesn't mean that we don't punish, or correct others, but it changes HOW we do things, and WHY.
-
OT
Thanks @Bicycle_B, Moneypenny has been my sceenname, e-mail, old blog etc in the Dutch frugal community for over almost 2 decades. Moneypenny was already taken here so I just had to get creative to make sure other users saw the difference, should the other Moneypenny still be very active, cause I couldn't think of anything else. So not that original /s.
And yes, I used to have Moneypenny's proffesion and yes, I love old Bond movies.
I inherited serious frugal genes from the grandfather I mentioned before. Grandpa was the prince of penny pinching. He knew all the prices at Aldi and would make sure he had to pay a sum xx,x2 or xx,x7. We don't have cents so cash payments are rounded of to 0 or 5 cents. He would save 1 or two cents on his groceries. I remember my grandmother wanting to buy me icecream at Aldi. Nope, get her cookies, that price is right. Maybe when we need unions later this week, we can buy ice cream. lol
Coffee was also used to get to that 2 or 7 cent, they had a huge stock of coffee and other things that would become unavailable, expensive and valuable should another war break out.
My grandmother was very relieved when groceries could be paid by bankcard by the way ;-).
-
Thank you for the replies, everyone. I'm certainly the only person that can make a final choice, but the different perspectives help. Except for being called (by implication? couldn't tell) a so-called American. I coulda just as easily done with out that.
-
It seems like a good time to find a new job! Far fewer people had a problem with President Obama's ban on Iraqis.
Obama's review of vetting procedures for Iraqis was not a ban on the scale of the Trump administration's. It was a review of Special Immigrant Visa application procedures that only lasted 6 months.
If you care, here's a link that goes into more detail about why Trump can't just say "Obama did it too."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
We have Liberal Groups financing record migration from the south and the Mid East unrest and migration from there are simply too much for our current infrastructure to accommodate.
I would love to see actual proof for this assertion.
FYI, you are feeding the troll
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead. There are already climate refugees around the world, and with the situation in places like Venezuela devolving so rapidly we do need to come up with something that actually helps people. I just don't see that option as viable either, not on the scale things need to be done. Governments aren't even altruistic toward their own people, let alone the people in other countries.
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.
The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous. On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers. A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs
-
Sam, despite (or perhaps because of) the sad circumstances that lead to you create this thread, I just want to say that this is perhaps one of the more important discussions to be had. The ethical implications of our actions or inactions are really not discussed enough, or at least not with serious intent. At least not in my world.
While I'm not anywhere near your situation I've considered of how and when I should activate myself more with both words (politics) or actions here in Europe where many dark forces are on the rise again.
Even though I've not fully articulated what I really think about many political issues, I do know that we're reaching the point where action needs to be taken. We must learn from the 20th century and the totalitarian regimes and those two horrible world wars and their causes, especially the causes of omission.
With this posting I just want thank you for starting these thoughts, and I'm inspired by the people I see here on the forums, not least the political activism of MJ.
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead. There are already climate refugees around the world, and with the situation in places like Venezuela devolving so rapidly we do need to come up with something that actually helps people. I just don't see that option as viable either, not on the scale things need to be done. Governments aren't even altruistic toward their own people, let alone the people in other countries.
Yeah I have no clue how to fix things either. Does Anyone? Its just as much a problem on a global scale that many nations have to deal with.
The US has dealt with these immigration/asylum issue since forever and Sam leaving her much beloved career, or even getting a new POTUS, won't necessarily change things. Which is why I'm saying to Sam to look at the good that she does on the job, and the good that her branch of the military does on a day to day basis, in all the other areas it participates in and I know she'll see that there is far greater value in her staying then leaving.
I totally get her feelings and frustrations and the sense of helplessness when having to be the person who has to carry out these policies themselves in person to people who have suffered massive hardship in their country, and in fleeing their country,, and lost family and children in their migration only to be told to go home to die or face incarceration. I did that for a long time as it was part of my job - a job I wasn't allowed to just quit - knowing that it would continue on whether I was there or not. So I tried to look at the greater good I was doing in other areas of my job and realized their value.
I think a good start would be taking a deep long look at the legal immigration process. If folks are risking life or limb to get to our country, even it means getting sent back, and doing so illegally, then something is seriously wrong with the legal migration process. Just a thought.
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.
The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous. On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers. A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs
That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/the-immigration-bills-6-3-trillion-price-tag-2/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2013/06/the-immigration-bills-6-3-trillion-price-tag-2/)
Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.
-
Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas. What we are doing at the border has very little affect on the "illegal immigration" problem.
-
Warlord, I'm glad you're in my gang.
I am not kidding when I say I'm planning for the worst. PM me if you want to know more.
-
SS, confirmation of "you are not alone" re federal personnel considering policy resistance, potentially at cost of job:
http://thehill.com/latino/394757-more-than-a-dozen-ice-agents-call-to-abolish-agency
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ice-chief-thomas-homan-is-retiring-tomorrow-but-hes-not-going-out-quietly
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.
The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous. On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers. A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs
That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.
Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.
I've read the study and others, and it was accurate at the time, although the cost would be MUCH higher now since the 6 TRILLION dollar cost in the Heritage Foundation comprehensive study was based on 2010 numbers. The U.S. and American taxpayers such as myself can't afford it, not to mention the serious security and safety concerns for U.S. citizens associated with illegal immigration.
And my comment was right on topic with the discussion in response to another post, not a response directly to the OP. It is allowed to respond to other posters in a thread - it happens all the time here. If you don't want to read my posts, then move along. You are the one trolling on me now just because open borders people like yourself don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your narrative.
-
Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas. What we are doing at the border has very little affect (sic) on the "illegal immigration" problem.
Everyone knows about the fugitive illegals also, but the border is still a big problem. We should be securing the border to prevent illegals from coming across, but there are other ways to deal with illegals who are in the country. They should not be able to work and receive so many public resources at U.S. taxpayer expense. There are systems like e-verify that can help with that. If we can't deport all of them, we can at least get more of them to self-deport. That was one of Mitt Romney's ideas as well.
-
Thank you for weighting in, @spartana. And thank you, @Bicycle_B. I wasn't aware Homan was resigning, thanks to my low information diet.
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
I do quibble with using family separation as a method of dissuasion from entering the United States. It's a guerrilla terror method that I refused to see as viable for the country that I love. It's also a lazy tactic. Ending jus soli would, in a single swipe of the pen, do everything the family separation policy ever attempted to accomplish, while also discouraging a significant portion of people who were even pondering trying to run the border. Instead, we decided to terrorize and incarcerate infants and tiny children, simply because it's easier to torture them than it is to end jus soli. And, yes, for some a paper solution lacks the tight little shiver of glee at willingly torturing other human beings. You get that kind of shiver, devildog?
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
-
Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas. What we are doing at the border has very little affect on the "illegal immigration" problem.
I vehemently disagree with your 2nd point. "Most" implies >50%, you most certainly do not have evidence for that. While I agree with you that "many" illegal aliens (no need for quotes there) do enter lawfully and overstay their visas, there is a HUGE problem with those illegally crossing the border and BP/ICE's efforts AT the border has a significant effect. Exactly how close to our southern border do you live? Have you ever seen the madness/insanity that occurs at Border Field State Park, San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and other proximal, more rural environs? How about the San Diego public school district? The invasion is real and I see constant reminders of it daily.
-
Some people on this thread need to remember
1) It is not illegal to seek aslyum, and you must be on US soil to do so. Even those who presented lawfully at a checkpoint are being punished. Entering outside of a checkpoint is a misdemeanor, not a felony.
2) Most "illegal aliens" entered lawfully and over stayed their visas. What we are doing at the border has very little affect on the "illegal immigration" problem.
I vehemently disagree with your 2nd point. "Most" implies >50%, you most certainly do not have evidence for that. While I agree with you that "many" illegal aliens (no need for quotes there) do enter lawfully and overstay their visas, there is a HUGE problem with those illegally crossing the border and BP/ICE's efforts AT the border has a significant effect. Exactly how close to our southern border do you live? Have you ever seen the madness/insanity that occurs at Border Field State Park, San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and other proximal, more rural environs? How about the San Diego public school district? The invasion is real and I see constant reminders of it daily.
Here's some evidence:
http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-zero-undocumented-growth/
Bullet 5. I'm not familiar with the Center for Migration studies but I didn't find any indication of bias with a quick search. If anyone knows otherwise please speak up.
I'm also not suggesting this negates the real effects you see on the ground but it does make me question the efficacy of physical deterrents like a wall.
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.
Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.
-
I wonder the same thing. I'm going to a march this weekend, but part of me wonders if doing that gets my name on a list (not that it's going to stop me now, but will it cause me to be separated from my child in the future if I get sent somewhere for my "treasonous" behavior). That list won't matter now but at the rate we're going what will our country look like in a couple years? Then I tell myself I'm being overly paranoid. The problem is I won't know until years from now, after all of this has played out. All of us are stuck making the best decisions we can now with the information we have, shitty and incomplete as that information might be.
I've worried about this since a life event a few years ago...that I'd be an easy target of a witch hunt.
But now I think I'd rather be on that list then let these things happen without saying anything.
I'm taking off time on Friday to go to a rally to help a democrat congressional campaign. We have a vulnerable Republican seat- it needs to be turned.
My parents and grandfather were all on “the list”, and it sounds much scarier than it was. During the Cold War, my parents not only belonged to a left wing party, but they lived in the far north of Norway, close to the Russian border. Being avid campers, they did end up on the wrong side of the border a couple of times, and once they did a longer holiday to Murmansk. We also walked in all the marches. They did notice some delays and clicks/echoing on the phone, but other than that, it didn’t make a difference in their/our day to day life. They have later (this millennium) visited the US, and gotten visas without questions. But I guess you are more fond of Russia now...
My grandfather lived on an island in the North Atlantic, and was on a high priority watch list with the US. He took part in establishing a socialist party, and although he didn’t have a place in parliament, the US (correctly) thought much of the ideology came from him. Again; never made much of a difference in his day to day life. He never traveled to the US, but that was not common back then. He did spend time in several parts of Western Europe, without any problems. It was more of an issue when he got on the Nazi’s bad list during the war. But he got away, changed his name, and spent the rest of the war being a bit more careful.
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.
The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous. On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers. A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs
That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.
Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.
I've read the study and others, and it was accurate at the time, although the cost would be MUCH higher now since the 6 TRILLION dollar cost in the Heritage Foundation comprehensive study was based on 2010 numbers. The U.S. and American taxpayers such as myself can't afford it, not to mention the serious security and safety concerns for U.S. citizens associated with illegal immigration.
And my comment was right on topic with the discussion in response to another post, not a response directly to the OP. It is allowed to respond to other posters in a thread - it happens all the time here. If you don't want to read my posts, then move along. You are the one trolling on me now just because open borders people like yourself don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your narrative.
No, it was not accurate at the time and still isn't accurate. Future projections cannot be accurate. Making assumptions for those future projections cannot be accurate. Those numbers were used by a select few trying to support their agenda. But both Dems and Repubs dismissed the numbers because of the huge inaccuracies, wild assumptions and thus complete bullshit.
Calling out bullshit is not trolling. Posting bullshit and claiming it's accurate is trolling.
-
ETA: Even the dems (of which I'm one) have made some negative immigration/asylum policies.
This definitely is not a "left vs. right" issue. At stake here is our very humanity, our decency.
I don't have a definitive answer for what the "right" choice is regarding immigration (we can't have completely open borders, I get that, but this rabid, antagonistic, and cruel attitude towards immigrants and asylum seekers is disturbing in its vehemence) but I worry that it will only get worse in the years ahead.
The border is like swiss cheese - it's ridiculous. On top of the obvious security issues, illegal aliens come at a great cost to American tax payers. A Heritage study calculated one of the previous amnesty bills to cost U.S. taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars years ago, and you can be certain the figure is much higher now:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/the-fiscal-cost-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-the-us-taxpayer
Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This should be considered a minimum estimate. It probably understates real future costs
That figure is bullshit. Try fact checking and using unbiased sources.
Go troll elsewhere. The OP was looking for some sage advice of which you have only provided a biased opinion.
I've read the study and others, and it was accurate at the time, although the cost would be MUCH higher now since the 6 TRILLION dollar cost in the Heritage Foundation comprehensive study was based on 2010 numbers. The U.S. and American taxpayers such as myself can't afford it, not to mention the serious security and safety concerns for U.S. citizens associated with illegal immigration.
And my comment was right on topic with the discussion in response to another post, not a response directly to the OP. It is allowed to respond to other posters in a thread - it happens all the time here. If you don't want to read my posts, then move along. You are the one trolling on me now just because open borders people like yourself don't want to hear anything that doesn't support your narrative.
No, it was not accurate at the time and still isn't accurate. Future projections cannot be accurate. Making assumptions for those future projections cannot be accurate. Those numbers were used by a select few trying to support their agenda. But both Dems and Repubs dismissed the numbers because of the huge inaccuracies, wild assumptions and thus complete bullshit.
Calling out bullshit is not trolling. Posting bullshit and claiming it's accurate is trolling.
I'm not going to buy The Heritage Foundation's report. That is a very well-known conservative think tank with ties to the full Republican agenda. Certainly a very biased source. (And I had friends who actually worked there, high up, so there's no way you'll convince me otherwise.)
-
With this posting I just want thank you for starting these thoughts, and I'm inspired by the people I see here on the forums, not least the political activism of MJ.
Aw thanks @lemanfan !
Meeps, I still think you should quit and run for office. You would have a kickass viral campaign video, a la Amy McGrath and MJ Hegar.
-
I don't have advice for you, but it's encouraging that you've recognized the problems and aren't comfortable with what you're being asked to do. Too often, the men and women involved in US military and paramilitary human rights violations don't voice concerns (or worse, don't feel any). Following dishonorable and morally wrong commands is both a stain upon yourself and a betrayal to your country, but the personal penalty to do the right thing can be significant.
-
Bottom Line Up Front:
Can I continue to claim personal honor and personal morality, while holding a commission from a governmental Department that's disregarding both honor and morality?
My understanding is that as a military officer you have a right and an obligation to refuse illegal orders. So until the point that you encounter that kind of order, I think you are on stable moral ground to stay if that is what you want to do. Also, it is important that the military retain honorable people for exactly the reasons you state.
I left a job for ethical reasons when I was asked to take actions that were both illegal and ethically wrong and I did it with virtually no savings. I've never regretted it and I have a great deal of sympathy for those who do likewise. My sense is that you are not yet in that situation. When you are I think you will know the right thing to do based on your thoughtful framing of the problem here.
-
My understanding is that as a military officer you have a right and an obligation to refuse illegal orders.
This is true only in theory.
See the US military approval of:
- Abu Ghraib Torture/Rape
- Guantanamo Bay Torture/Rape/Murders
- Helping Afghani pedophiles gain power and access to children
- Murder of Pakistani civilians by drone strike
etc.
The US military condones and expects it's personnel to perform immoral ace on a regular basis, and this pre-dates Trump. If you take a moral stand by refusing an order, your career is likely over and you're likely to be disciplined. When a whistleblower (like Edward Snowden) pops up, they are treated pretty harshly.
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.
Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.
You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.
Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.
You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.
You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.
Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".
Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it. It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.
Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.
You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.
You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.
Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".
Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it. It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.
Not sure where that 99.9% statistic comes from. According to open-borders CNN, 60-75 % of illegals show for the hearing. They also get to wander around the country and avail themselves of health care and education services in the interim. Seems like we have enough crime, suffering and poverty here already with little need to import unskilled, poorly educated people from third world countries. This issue is a winner for Trump.
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.
Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.
You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.
You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.
Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".
Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it. It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.
Not sure where that 99.9% statistic comes from. According to open-borders CNN, 60-75 % of illegals show for the hearing. They also get to wander around the country and avail themselves of health care and education services in the interim. Seems like we have enough crime, suffering and poverty here already with little need to import unskilled, poorly educated people from third world countries. This issue is a winner for Trump.
I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.
https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention
-
@DreamFIRE, why choose such an aggressively assholeish tone in my thread, shipmate? I ain't for open borders. I've worked for 11 years to keep borders closed, without any truly existential moral quibbles beyond what @spartana has already described.
Hmmmm.... I'm not sure what you're referring to since I merely commented on the issues, yet I was attacked by a couple people who didn't like that I made comments that didn't fit their narrative.
I never said you supported open borders, but a lot of people prefer we be weak on border security, which is a big step in that direction. It's not uncommon for people to post responses to others making comments in a thread. Don't assume they are all directed at you, when they may be more general comments on the topic and how the discussion has developed in the thread. I agree with spartana's recommendation.
Let me take a stab at this. It's probably when you say things like "Don't let the mainstream media manipulate you" or "I'm sorry you don't understand". You're not so much debating the topic as explaining to other's why they're wrong.
Oh, and at this point the "open borders" argument just feels like trolling. What does it even mean? Maybe you haven't been involved in some of the other discussions but the whole idea has been thoroughly refuted while some people continue to act like it's the only alternative to whatever they're in favor of. If you want to say someone is in favor of weaker border security, say so. If that's not really how they feel, then they at least know what you're saying and continue the discussion. The "open borders" accusation is just flinging shit and running away.
You can't separate parents from their children.
You can't detain children more than 20 days with or without their parents.
As a result, you effectively can't arrest parents for illegal entry.
You must therefore catch and release into the interior any parent with a child who illegally crosses the border.
You can require them to appear at a hearing but many do not since if they do appear they may be deported.
Sounds pretty close to open borders.
You give them a court date and an ankle bracelet and 99.9% of them turn up for the court hearing.
Sounds nothing like close to "open borders".
Sailor Sam, although you are technically part of the DHS the Coastguard has a long and honorable tradition of service which predates the DHS and I'm pretty sure will outlast it. It may help to think of yourself as Coastguard and not as DHS.
Not sure where that 99.9% statistic comes from. According to open-borders CNN, 60-75 % of illegals show for the hearing. They also get to wander around the country and avail themselves of health care and education services in the interim. Seems like we have enough crime, suffering and poverty here already with little need to import unskilled, poorly educated people from third world countries. This issue is a winner for Trump.
I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.
https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention
Thanks for this. A program like this may solve one problem with asylum seekers - making sure they show up for their hearings. The bigger issue however is whether American citizens benefit from our current immigration policies. The focus of the left seems to be on what benefits the migrants and not what is good for the country. Taking in the entire populations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras may benefit the citizens of those countries. Pretty sure that would be bad for American citizens. There is nothing wrong with structuring our immigration system to benefit our own citizens. That is what most other countries do. Allowing a large number of unskilled immigrants to come here would necessarily suppress wages for Americans and put a strain on our medical and education systems. Many Americans are suffering now. We have widespread crime and poverty in our inner cities. Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
-
Because right wing policies tend to prevent you from taking care of your own?
-
I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.
https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention
Thanks, yes, that was the reference I was groping towards.
The bigger issue however is whether American citizens benefit from our current immigration policies. The focus of the left seems to be on what benefits the migrants and not what is good for the country. Taking in the entire populations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras may benefit the citizens of those countries. Pretty sure that would be bad for American citizens. There is nothing wrong with structuring our immigration system to benefit our own citizens. That is what most other countries do. Allowing a large number of unskilled immigrants to come here would necessarily suppress wages for Americans and put a strain on our medical and education systems. Many Americans are suffering now. We have widespread crime and poverty in our inner cities. Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
Thing is, even if the USA did have "open borders" (which I've never heard anyone serious suggest), most people Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras still wouldn't come to the USA, just as most people in Europe didn't come to the USA when there were no restrictions. Most people just don't move countries that easily.
And how many USA citizens want to work in abbatoirs and meat packing plants, or milk dairy cows, or clean houses or do landscaping? Or want to move to where those jobs are (there's inertia to moving within a country just as there is to moving between countries)? Companes are hurting for employees to do these jobs.
And also, the birth rate in the USA is below population replacement rates. Without immigration the USA will become smaller and poorer.
-
I think the figure being referred to was actually 99.6% and comes from the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) which included several measures including an ankle monitor.
https://www.cato.org/blog/alternatives-detention-are-cheaper-indefinite-detention
Thanks for this. A program like this may solve one problem with asylum seekers - making sure they show up for their hearings. The bigger issue however is whether American citizens benefit from our current immigration policies. The focus of the left seems to be on what benefits the migrants and not what is good for the country. Taking in the entire populations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras may benefit the citizens of those countries. Pretty sure that would be bad for American citizens. There is nothing wrong with structuring our immigration system to benefit our own citizens. That is what most other countries do. Allowing a large number of unskilled immigrants to come here would necessarily suppress wages for Americans and put a strain on our medical and education systems. Many Americans are suffering now. We have widespread crime and poverty in our inner cities. Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
I think current immigration policies are a mix of practicality and political grandstanding, both past and present. The practical side is that the country largely gets about the amount of immigration it needs.
Making the door open more easily for skilled immigrants would be helpful to America as well as the immigrants, but we do let in skilled people. Admittedly our paperwork is cumbersome and we lag other countries in this area, but we get a large fraction of the potential gains anyway. "Unskilled" immigrants are also wanted by business and needed for the economy, just as they were when most of my unskilled ancestors came from Europe. The political freak-out over immigration ignores this last fact, just as it has every couple of generations since the founding of the Republic. Realistically, the modest barriers we have allow enough cheap labor to come in so that our vegies are cheap and our floors are clean, due to work done by harmless compliant people who are very careful not to hurt anyone because they don't want to be deported (and because most of them are harmless people in the first place). The taxes paid and benefits directly received are roughly equal, as public analyses linked upthread show, while the economic benefit of migrants performing needed work is huge.
An additional positive from immigration is that much of the "benefits received" consists of kids going to school. On the books, that's a cost. But smart countries (Germany today, America in the past) recognize that education is a public good - an investment that benefits the overall economy because the kids grow up to be contributors to the society. That advantage, plus the immediate economic benefit of performing necessary work, mean that we benefit from immigrants.
Business gets about as much immigration as it wants. The political fears are just noise as far as substance goes. When the noise fades, business will still get about as much immigration as it wants. As it has for 240 years or so.
-
Thank you, SailorSam, for your eloquent posts.
I share the horror that most who have posted here express about separating young children from their parents. What monsters have we become? As a human and especially as a parent, I am appalled.
Some of you have suggested DNA testing on the way as a solution, which I thought of as well. But, do you want our govt to have your DNA sequenced and matched up to your name at this point in time? Suffice it to say that our government is not displaying the level of integrity that I would expect someone with my medical information to display. My DNA has been sequenced by a medical center to help a loved one with a life threatening medical issue . . . some of my relatives declined and I thought they were assholes at the time. Now I am not so sure. (I would not change my decision, though.)
Basically we will end up forcing all of these people to allow their DNA to be collected and sequenced by the govt (or a private company which has been known to share info with the govt) in order to get their children back. Shame on us.
To those who say "well then they should not have broken the law", bear in mind that the true precedent being set here is that any parent who is just being charged with any misdemeanor crime could have their children taken away indefinitely. No, that is not crazy talk. It is a slippery slope.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
-
I'm seeing the phrase 'avail themselves of healthcare' like that's a bad thing.... I know, logically, that we can't afford to treat everyone in the world to amazing healthcare. But as someone working in healthcare, I do want everyone to avail themselves of healthcare.
In so many places people resist available healthcare with devastating results. I hope that anyone who recognizes the value of healthcare seeks access to the best healthcare they can. And I don't think that any country does a good enough job providing healthcare for their citizens or for visitors and people overseas.
-
Thank you, SailorSam, for your eloquent posts.
I share the horror that most who have posted here express about separating young children from their parents. What monsters have we become? As a human and especially as a parent, I am appalled.
Some of you have suggested DNA testing on the way as a solution, which I thought of as well. But, do you want our govt to have your DNA sequenced and matched up to your name at this point in time? Suffice it to say that our government is not displaying the level of integrity that I would expect someone with my medical information to display. My DNA has been sequenced by a medical center to help a loved one with a life threatening medical issue . . . some of my relatives declined and I thought they were assholes at the time. Now I am not so sure. (I would not change my decision, though.)
Basically we will end up forcing all of these people to allow their DNA to be collected and sequenced by the govt (or a private company which has been known to share info with the govt) in order to get their children back. Shame on us.
To those who say "well then they should not have broken the law", bear in mind that the true precedent being set here is that any parent who is just being charged with any misdemeanor crime could have their children taken away indefinitely. No, that is not crazy talk. It is a slippery slope.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
Indeed. One of the things that appalls me about ICE. Yes, we should regulate our borders. But their unconstitutional tactics set a precedent to violate American citizens' civil rights. This will bite us in the ass later down the road.
-
Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.
-
Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.
Yep. The logic is awesome.
"We've been working so hard for so long to be assholes to our countrymen . . . that's why we should be allowed to be assholes to people who want to come here."
-
^That is spot on.
DNA tests have now been ordered for ~3,000 children who have been separated from their parents by force. . . what a clusterfuck this whole thing is. Obviously there were no tracking system or timely reunification plans in place.
Prison industrial complex gone insane.
-
^That is spot on.
DNA tests have now been ordered for ~3,000 children who have been separated from their parents by force. . . what a clusterfuck this whole thing is. Obviously there were no tracking system or timely reunification plans in place.
Prison industrial complex gone insane.
That's exactly what it is...at nearly $800/person per night for the tent cities, someone's making some money here.
-
^That is spot on.
DNA tests have now been ordered for ~3,000 children who have been separated from their parents by force. . . what a clusterfuck this whole thing is. Obviously there were no tracking system or timely reunification plans in place.
Prison industrial complex gone insane.
That's exactly what it is...at nearly $800/person per night for the tent cities, someone's making some money here.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/06/zero-tolerance-immigration-is-big-money-for-contractors-nonprofits/
-
Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.
Yep. The logic is awesome.
"We've been working so hard for so long to be assholes to our countrymen . . . that's why we should be allowed to be assholes to people who want to come here."
Yep it's just pure lazyness, the Republican Party just like to say that to try to justify their agenda of cutting taxes for wealthy, reducing benefits for those we need to take care of and limiting access for minority voting.
You'll notice that evertime someone says "we need to take care of people in our country" it's to justify treating someone not-white terribly and offers no actual real solutions for how we "treat people better".
-
WTF?! Now officials are admitting they've "lost track" of the parents of 38 (and I'm going to add "at least" 38 here based upon how this is going) of the pre-school and younger aged children who were separated from their parents at the border. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-asks-more-time-reunite-kids-parents-separated-border-n889301
-
No surprise there.
-
Why don't we take care of our own before we take care of others?
Given the number of statements like this that I have seen lately, you'd think the Republican party would be all about providing affordable and accessible health care to Americans.
Yep. The logic is awesome.
"We've been working so hard for so long to be assholes to our countrymen . . . that's why we should be allowed to be assholes to people who want to come here."
LOL, you're so right! Most of the people I hear say that then indicate they mean we should be doing much more for veterans. And that's fair. But they act as if nothing else matters unless the veterans are taken care of, and we cannot care about any other cause until that is done.
WTF?! Now officials are admitting they've "lost track" of the parents of 38 (and I'm going to add "at least" 38 here based upon how this is going) of the pre-school and younger aged children who were separated from their parents at the border. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
Fucking awesome. And by that, I mean shitty.