Politics

[grovester]

I'm not sure that asylum equals citizenship.

Previous "caravans" have dwindled in numbers as they go through Mexico and toward the borders. Not sure what will happen with this one since HYPE!

[beautyfromashes]

Pretty much. I believe we need to monitor it and perhaps limit it at some point. I believe it should be regulated to the extent we can keep out terrorists, weapons and narcotics. However, I have yet to see any evidence that we have reached some crisis stage of immigration. So, yeah - citizenship for everyone. Everything I've seen says our population numbers are relatively stagnant. We have more resources than anyone and can certainly sustain the growth.

I really feel that this would be terrible for the world. It’s the equivalent of giving free grain to Africa and putting farmers there out of a livelihood. It might make you feel good to express it, but it is a net negative to humanity.

[WSPanic]

Pretty much. I believe we need to monitor it and perhaps limit it at some point. I believe it should be regulated to the extent we can keep out terrorists, weapons and narcotics. However, I have yet to see any evidence that we have reached some crisis stage of immigration. So, yeah - citizenship for everyone. Everything I've seen says our population numbers are relatively stagnant. We have more resources than anyone and can certainly sustain the growth.

I really feel that this would be terrible for the world. It’s the equivalent of giving free grain to Africa and putting farmers there out of a livelihood. It might make you feel good to express it, but it is a net negative to humanity.

It's OK. I feel like your argument is terrible too.

[FangKC]

Accepting refugees seeking asylum doesn't necessarily mean they will become citizens, or even apply for it. Sometimes we accept refugees for a period of years to see if the problem in their country resolves itself, and they can safely return.

It is legal for any non-resident refugee to arrive at any border port-of-entry, and request asylum. So the people in the caravan are doing nothing illegal. There is no reason for Trump to be fear-mongering about this, and making it sound like these refugees are doing something wrong.

We have a processing system to vet refugees that is designed to identify criminals and terrorists. It's the same system our country uses to process Syrian refugees.

We have seen a refugee crisis before with the Cuban boat people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

The Mariel boatlift was ended by mutual agreement between the two governments in late October 1980. By that time as many as 125,000 Cubans had reached Florida.

With what is happening in Venezuela, we should expect more refugees fleeing the humanitarian crisis there.

What's the difference between legal immigration, asylum, refugees and DACA?

https://www.dallasnews.com/life/curious ... as-explains

[FangKC]

Hawley campaign and NRA’s political fund accused of illegal coordination

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley’s Senate campaign and the National Rifle Association’s PAC have engaged in an elaborate scheme to conceal illegal coordination, a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleges.

Hawley’s campaign is employing the same people to produce ads as the NRA Political Victory Fund. Last month, one person placed ads on behalf of the Missouri Republican’s campaign and the PAC with the same television station on the same day, according to the complaint.

The overlap in personnel is strong evidence of coordination between the PAC and the campaign, said Brendan Fischer, director of the federal reform program at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center in Washington.

...

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politi ... i1fu6XcvUQ

[cityscape]

Pretty much. I believe we need to monitor it and perhaps limit it at some point. I believe it should be regulated to the extent we can keep out terrorists, weapons and narcotics. However, I have yet to see any evidence that we have reached some crisis stage of immigration. So, yeah - citizenship for everyone. Everything I've seen says our population numbers are relatively stagnant. We have more resources than anyone and can certainly sustain the growth.

I really feel that this would be terrible for the world. It’s the equivalent of giving free grain to Africa and putting farmers there out of a livelihood. It might make you feel good to express it, but it is a net negative to humanity.

As I see this whole situation, no one is addressing the actual problem here. None of these immigrants WANTS to make a 1,500 mile trek across foreign land with minimal supplies with only hope guiding them. They want to live in their home. Sadly, it has become so bad where they live that they feel their only option is to flee and leave it all behind. Building a wall, locking down our borders is just another hurdle these immigrants will eventually find a way around.

In my opinion we should take that potential $25 billion for the wall and do two things. Invest in the countries where the immigrants are coming from, by encouraging businesses to pull factories from China and put them into Venezuela, Guatemala, etc... All while working with the governments to assist with the problems they are having (not easy, I get it, but still something that needs to be done). Second, we need to invest in our own immigration process, we need more judges, faster processing, more immigration employees and more direct rules for how to become a US citizen.

My housekeeper, who is a US citizen, adopted a daughter from Guatemala 10 years ago and has been trying to just even get her to the US. They just found out last week that they will be able to bring her over in a few months. She followed all the rules, processes, paperwork, etc... She even worked with Yoder (worthless) to try and see if we could resolve the situation and get her daughter brought to the United states sooner. None of it helped and the long drawn out process has been 10 years in the making. Meanwhile she and her husband have been splitting their time between the US and Guatemala to be able to be with their daughter. IMHO this is why people who are desperate try and cross the border illegally. We have a shit show of an immigration process and it is easier for someone to cross illegally and try to survive on their own and then plead asylum if they get caught.

Fix the real problems, don't just create hurdles, that's what we should be doing.

[flyingember]

If US companies got tax breaks only if they opened their outsourced factories in countries that provide drugs and immigrants you would see it happen.

[beautyfromashes]

All while working with the governments to assist with the problems they are having (not easy, I get it, but still something that needs to be done). Second, we need to invest in our own immigration process, we need more judges, faster processing, more immigration employees and more direct rules for how to become a US citizen.

The problem is Central and South America have strong histories of dictatorship. We give them money meant to push them toward freedom and democracy and they use it to more entrench their power or build their own personal wealth. Even aid money is stolen for these purposes. Also, no company would put any viable resources in these countries due to the threat of nationalization. The oil companies spent $Bs on exploration and processing in Venezuela. The government just took their assets or forced them to sell at well below cost. No company will invest in that country for decades.

[cityscape]

All while working with the governments to assist with the problems they are having (not easy, I get it, but still something that needs to be done). Second, we need to invest in our own immigration process, we need more judges, faster processing, more immigration employees and more direct rules for how to become a US citizen.

The problem is Central and South America have strong histories of dictatorship. We give them money meant to push them toward freedom and democracy and they use it to more entrench their power or build their own personal wealth. Even aid money is stolen for these purposes. Also, no company would put any viable resources in these countries due to the threat of nationalization. The oil companies spent $Bs on exploration and processing in Venezuela. The government just took their assets or forced them to sell at well below cost. No company will invest in that country for decades.

How is this different from China???? I'm not suggesting moving everything, but you have to start somewhere and fix the problem at the source.

[beautyfromashes]

How is this different from China???? I'm not suggesting moving everything, but you have to start somewhere and fix the problem at the source.

Very different culturally. Latin America has strong history of resistance, unionization, strikes, revolution... characteristics that are negative to capitalism. China, generally, has a more group think culture that is anti-resistance. This allows communist leaders to exert more control and is better for ‘business’.

[grovester]

All while working with the governments to assist with the problems they are having (not easy, I get it, but still something that needs to be done). Second, we need to invest in our own immigration process, we need more judges, faster processing, more immigration employees and more direct rules for how to become a US citizen.

The problem is Central and South America have strong histories of dictatorship. We give them money meant to push them toward freedom and democracy and they use it to more entrench their power or build their own personal wealth. Even aid money is stolen for these purposes. Also, no company would put any viable resources in these countries due to the threat of nationalization. The oil companies spent $Bs on exploration and processing in Venezuela. The government just took their assets or forced them to sell at well below cost. No company will invest in that country for decades.

Except when the US gives money to rebels to oppose duly elected governments, which creates a vacuum and leads to corruption and unrest.

Pretending we are not part of the problem, either in the past or currently, will prevent the problem from ever being solved.

[beautyfromashes]

Except when the US gives money to rebels to oppose duly elected governments, which creates a vacuum and leads to corruption and unrest.

Pretending we are not part of the problem, either in the past or currently, will prevent the problem from ever being solved.

Absolutely! But, say Exxon Mobil spends $1B on oil exploration in Venezuela. Dictator nationalizes (steals) it to give money to the people and entrench their power. Don’t you think Exxon is going to push their US government officials to get their $1B back? And give money to their politicians to make it happen?

[earthling]

Polls tied to elections are at best just a temperature of public feeling at the moment as what matters is who shows up to vote. Will more DEM leaning supporters actually show up for this mid-term?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/21/democra ... -poll.html

Seems GOP has more arsenal and momentum riling up their base than DEMs. Suspect whatever is hot a few days before midterms is what will drive DEM/GOP direction of turnout more than hot button items beforehand (Kavanaugh, immigrants, Trump tweets, etc).

[grovester]

Except when the US gives money to rebels to oppose duly elected governments, which creates a vacuum and leads to corruption and unrest.

Pretending we are not part of the problem, either in the past or currently, will prevent the problem from ever being solved.

Absolutely! But, say Exxon Mobil spends $1B on oil exploration in Venezuela. Dictator nationalizes (steals) it to give money to the people and entrench their power. Don’t you think Exxon is going to push their US government officials to get their $1B back? And give money to their politicians to make it happen?

Exxon would have been aware of the risk beforehand and is likely insured to the hilt. Not to mention the corruption and societal abuse that probably went along with the exploration and implementation. CAPITALISM!

[beautyfromashes]

Exxon would have been aware of the risk beforehand and is likely insured to the hilt. Not to mention the corruption and societal abuse that probably went along with the exploration and implementation. CAPITALISM!

Hey, I’m not giving a justification, just the thought in why a corporate executive wouldn’t invest in Central/South America and, thus, why they are having economic problems. You can’t expect investment in areas of chaos and normal people pay the price.

[grovester]

Yes, normal people seeking refugee status.

[cityscape]

Exxon would have been aware of the risk beforehand and is likely insured to the hilt. Not to mention the corruption and societal abuse that probably went along with the exploration and implementation. CAPITALISM!

Hey, I’m not giving a justification, just the thought in why a corporate executive wouldn’t invest in Central/South America and, thus, why they are having economic problems. You can’t expect investment in areas of chaos and normal people pay the price.

Correct, but in China the risks are they steal your IP and make substandard products, etc... my point wasn’t that China and Latin American countries operated the same just that they had similar risk.

[beautyfromashes]

Correct, but in China the risks are they steal your IP and make substandard products, etc... my point wasn’t that China and Latin American countries operated the same just that they had similar risk.

Right, I just wholeheartedly disagree.

[FangKC]

We should be better prepared for these refugee crisis situations than we are. It isn't like we haven't seen them before. I would think decommissioned military bases would be good places to house refugees until processing can be done, and placement made. Bases have administrative buildings, hundreds of units of base housing, health clinics, grocery store buildings, cafeterias, churches, schools, gymnasiums, landing strips, and backup power systems.

I understand why active military bases can't handle these situations for a variety of reasons, but there are plenty of ones that the military wants to shut down, or already have.

The Department of Defense could turn them over to the State Department, or the Naturalization Service. These bases could also be used to house people who have to flee hurricanes, or need a place to stay until their communities can be made safe and functional again.

It just drives me crazy when I hear stories before and after hurricanes that there are poor people without cars who have no way to flee, or anywhere to go if they did have a car. It a governor issues a mandatory evacuation order, that should mean that the National Guard picks up these people and gets them out whether it be by bus or airplane, and that they are taken to these repurposed military bases.

If the refugees are headed for our border to request asylum, why not just get out ahead of the problem and send planes down to get them instead of making people with small children walk thousands of miles with no resources? Again, it's not illegal for refugees to come to our border points-of-entry, and request asylum. This point seems to be lost on the Trump Administration.

Trump's reaction just seems cruel to me. I don't care what your political affiliation is. It just seems cruel--especially when we call ourselves the greatest nation, and a Christian nation, and our president responds in this manner. How can we ever lecture the world on compassion and generosity if Trump's rhetoric on desperate refugees is acceptable. Sure, he's behaving badly. We know that about him. But what about the other Republicans in power?

[phuqueue]

I'm not sure the government should be empowered to dictate to people where they'll live, and I'm not really into viewing immigrants as merely tools to accomplish some end (be it economic growth, or revitalizing depopulated communities, or funding the retirement of existing citizens, or whatever), although I realize that emphasizing these advantages of immigration might help convince people who are skeptical of immigrants. I'm also not actually sure it's super necessary to exert that kind of control over immigrants anyway -- as has been discussed in this thread, immigrants are already helping to revive some of these towns and cities even without exerting that kind of control over them. If you want to accelerate that process it might be as easy as simply letting more immigrants in, rather than devising some convoluted authoritarian system that tells people where they can or can't live, or tells businesses where they can or can't employ people.

As opposed to the US government dictating that few-to-no immigrants will be allowed anywhere?

When it comes to immigration, the government does dictate anything and everything based on administrations' policy and interpretation of law, and federal judges' willingness to enforce law.

In the history of the republic, the government has had a lot of influence over where immigrants and citizens moved. Free land grants, railroad placement, defense contracts, etc.

If you re-read my comments, you will see I said the government wouldn't have any say over movement once the person achieved citizenship. However, until one becomes a citizen, I think the government can have a lot of say over whether you are allowed into, or stay in, the country at all, that could include where you will live. Because keep in mind, the government doesn't have to allow an immigrant into the country at all.

I'm dubious that the federal government could justify dictating where immigrants live once they're in the country, even if it clearly has the power to decide whether they enter in the first place. Having the kind of "influence" you described is a far cry from issuing ironclad decrees. The feds are allowed to provide incentives to do all kinds of things that they don't have power to actually mandate directly. That being said, my argument is less about whether or not they can, than whether or not they should. Your attitude toward immigrants was described by missingkc as "nasty," and you asked how. To me, you seem to be talking about immigrants in really dehumanizing terms, treating them as little more than tools to achieve your policy goals. Yes, immigrants are good for the economy (contrary to GOP fears), and yes they can revitalize down and out communities, but more important than these characteristics is the fact that they are human beings, in many cases fleeing violent, untenable situations in their home countries. They have their own reasons for settling where they choose to settle, which can include linking up with family or friends or other members of their community who have arrived before them, that I don't believe should be overridden by federal fiat in order to rejuvenate Akron. And as I mentioned before, plenty of immigrants are already choosing, on their own, to move to those kinds of communities without having to be forced there.

I also don't think that shunting immigrants away from major cities like San Francisco or New York will be especially helpful to anybody. Yes, these cities are suffering from a housing crunch, but no, immigrants are not really the cause of those problems. Immigrants aren't the ones pushing developers to build almost exclusively high-end luxury buildings. Immigrants aren't the ones buying up apartments as an "investment" and then leaving them vacant. They are the ones greasing the wheels to keep the whole city running, though. They're the ones running the bodegas, delivering food, cleaning offices, etc etc etc.

This is simply a humanitarian crisis being exploited by the right.

But, aren’t they out of crisis once they leave Honduras? Wouldn’t Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico be required to take them before the US? Sure, they would have more economic opportunity here, but wouldn’t that then be an economic choice and no longer a humanitarian crisis? How are we not taking everyone who makes it to our border?

A lot of them do settle in Mexico. But it's not like Honduras is the one dangerous country in an otherwise peaceful, utopian region. Mexico is locked in its own narcowar and it's probably the most stable country down there.

But yes, I agree with WS, anyone who wants to come here should be welcome (likewise, anyone who wants to leave here should be welcome in their country of choice as well). I don't see any compelling reason to lock the doors, and I don't understand how it's a "net negative to humanity," as you said in a later post, to let people live where they want to live. On the contrary, making it easier to move around seems like it would be a huge net positive for humanity. If movement is free, you'll probably see many of the people who move here (or to Europe) for strictly economic reasons eventually returning to their homelands with the money they've made and skills they've acquired -- those who are undocumented are currently not doing this, for fear that they won't be able to get back in again. Most people have much stronger ties to their homes than you seem to be acknowledging. They have their reasons for leaving, but they also have reasons for going back, as their situation permits. People who are moving to escape violence are obviously less likely to go back, at least until the violence is quelled, but why should we lock out people who are trying not to get killed?