Politics

[beautyfromashes]

but why should we lock out people who are trying not to get killed?

We absolutely should! Political dissidents who are being targeted by governments should be openly allowed into the country. That is a small minority of the cases we are seeing, about 10-15%. But, the overwhelming majority are looking for economic opportunity.

You state that this is good for our economy. For who? For corporations who want cheap labor instead of paying a living wage? How can we demand $15/hour for all jobs and then allow illegals to enter easily and work making much less? That keeps those trying to get out of poverty from doing it and mainly hurts our minority communities. On top of this, when you take an entire generation of young men from a country and move them out, you cause major problems for the society left behind. We should be working to improve conditions in that country instead of allowing or encouraging the erosion of that society by allowing anyone who can make it to the US in, like you and others have suggested.

[WSPanic]

but why should we lock out people who are trying not to get killed?

We absolutely should! Political dissidents who are being targeted by governments should be openly allowed into the country. That is a small minority of the cases we are seeing, about 10-15%. But, the overwhelming majority are looking for economic opportunity.

I don't believe this is an accurate representation overall - And specifically wrong for the "caravan" in question. Common sense tells me that uprooting your family and your life and walking 4,000 with nothing more than what you can carry is not something you do for just the possibility of getting some migrant work. The numbers seem to support this.

In 2016, 75% of the asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) passed the CF (credible fear) screening and 32% passed the much more rigorous RF (reasonable fear) standard. The number of affirmative asylum applications by migrants from Northern Triangle Countries has also risen dramatically from '14-'16, from 7,723 to 25,801, a 234 percent increase. More individuals affirmatively sought asylum in 2014- 2016 than in the preceding 17 years combined.

In short - this is becoming a humanitarian crisis in our backyard. These people are being denied ANY economic opportunity by way of gangs who pretty much run the economies of where they live. We can ignore it - or we can do what Americans normally do in this situation. We help.

[phuqueue]

I have not advocated for corporations to be allowed to exploit undocumented immigrants in lieu of paying citizens a living wage, but the main thing that empowers corporations to exploit immigrants is their undocumented status. They can't report their employers without risking deportation, so they take what they decide is the better of two bad options. In economic terms, their status creates a distortion in the labor market. That being said, "experiments" in forcing out immigrants have mostly shown they really do fill roles that citizens aren't willing to take even when the citizens enjoy all the legal protections that citizenship entails, so let immigrants take those jobs if they want them -- but grant them the same legal protections that citizens have, too.

But immigrants are good for the economy even if they aren't being paid illegally low wages because they add both more workers and more consumers. Capitalism is, at its core, basically a pyramid scheme that requires constant growth to sustain itself. Immigrants can fuel that growth as well as native-born citizens can. I mean birth rates among citizens are at historic lows and below replacement rate, so immigrants actually are basically the entirety of our population growth already.

Even if you allow immigrants in with few or no restrictions, you aren't going to empty out other countries of their best and brightest. People, in general, don't want to leave their homes and only do so when compelled (by poverty, by violence, etc). Some non-zero number of immigrants would eventually return to their home countries if they could, and they'd take back their accumulated wealth and skills with them (this is essentially the reason Trump's wall is actually expected to increase the undocumented population, because in making it harder to cross the border you just lock in people who have already crossed). Moreover, there's little evidence that US immigration policy is currently driving Latin American countries to develop themselves anyway (there is ample evidence that US drug policy is what is tearing them apart, but I digress).

I do think that you will essentially "solve" immigration by addressing the root causes that drive people to immigrate, but we certainly aren't doing that, or even thinking about doing that, right now. Trump overtly views other countries as repositories of natural resources for America to exploit, and previous presidents don't have especially strong records on this either. But there is no reason we couldn't pursue this strategy at the same time that we accept those immigrants who do want to come here. These aren't either/or propositions, although even getting to the point of considering them that way would be an improvement over our current political situation in which they are neither/nor.

[beautyfromashes]

You rail on capitalism but then advocate for anyone to come here and work, letting the best worker take the job...the very basis of capitalism. And I’m fine with that if I didn’t see a very real negative social impact on other countries. There also is a large social welfare cost for those left out of the workforce but wanting to stay in this market, likely poor minorities. I don’t doubt that you are advocating for these immigrants out of heart for humanity and those in a terrible economic situation. I have the same desire for them to have full, productive lives and families. I just don’t think removing them from the situation instead of trying to help the situation in place is the best solution.

[cityscape]

I have not advocated for corporations to be allowed to exploit undocumented immigrants in lieu of paying citizens a living wage, but the main thing that empowers corporations to exploit immigrants is their undocumented status. They can't report their employers without risking deportation, so they take what they decide is the better of two bad options. In economic terms, their status creates a distortion in the labor market. That being said, "experiments" in forcing out immigrants have mostly shown they really do fill roles that citizens aren't willing to take even when the citizens enjoy all the legal protections that citizenship entails, so let immigrants take those jobs if they want them -- but grant them the same legal protections that citizens have, too.

But immigrants are good for the economy even if they aren't being paid illegally low wages because they add both more workers and more consumers. Capitalism is, at its core, basically a pyramid scheme that requires constant growth to sustain itself. Immigrants can fuel that growth as well as native-born citizens can. I mean birth rates among citizens are at historic lows and below replacement rate, so immigrants actually are basically the entirety of our population growth already.

Even if you allow immigrants in with few or no restrictions, you aren't going to empty out other countries of their best and brightest. People, in general, don't want to leave their homes and only do so when compelled (by poverty, by violence, etc). Some non-zero number of immigrants would eventually return to their home countries if they could, and they'd take back their accumulated wealth and skills with them (this is essentially the reason Trump's wall is actually expected to increase the undocumented population, because in making it harder to cross the border you just lock in people who have already crossed). Moreover, there's little evidence that US immigration policy is currently driving Latin American countries to develop themselves anyway (there is ample evidence that US drug policy is what is tearing them apart, but I digress).

I do think that you will essentially "solve" immigration by addressing the root causes that drive people to immigrate, but we certainly aren't doing that, or even thinking about doing that, right now. Trump overtly views other countries as repositories of natural resources for America to exploit, and previous presidents don't have especially strong records on this either. But there is no reason we couldn't pursue this strategy at the same time that we accept those immigrants who do want to come here. These aren't either/or propositions, although even getting to the point of considering them that way would be an improvement over our current political situation in which they are neither/nor.

Completely agree. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades and have now flipped the corner of there being more available jobs than workers to fill them. We need immigration (legal) to support this country as we continue to age as a nation. The workers outside of the baby boomer generation don't have great enough numbers to support the baby boomers through their retirement. It is simple math. We need immigrants to take the jobs being left behind to support our economy. Plain and simple. We should be able to handle waves of asylum seekers and be able to process them at the border in a timely manner (2-3 months). But that won't happen with this administration because they just want us all to fear cultural differences and the remote possibility that some bad people might sneak into the country. We cannot protect ourselves entirely. The best we can do is try to solve the problem at its source and have a more thorough and faster process to handle asylum seekers and eventually a detailed path to citizenship.

[FangKC]

Completely agree. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades and have now flipped the corner of there being more available jobs than workers to fill them. We need immigration (legal) to support this country as we continue to age as a nation. The workers outside of the baby boomer generation don't have great enough numbers to support the baby boomers through their retirement. It is simple math. We need immigrants to take the jobs being left behind to support our economy. Plain and simple.
...

Be careful cityscape, phuqueue says that human beings shouldn't be participants in any sort of national economic goals or purposes. Having enough workers available to support retirees is bad! He'll accuse you of not having any humanity.

[FangKC]

Texts to voters purportedly from Trump roil Kansas election

TOPEKA, Kan.

Kansas election officials are reviewing text messages claiming to be from President Donald Trump and telling residents that their early votes hadn't been recorded, as Democratic leaders were quick Thursday to worry that they were part of efforts to "steal" a close governor's race.
...
"The whole purpose of sending it out is to sow confusion," Ward said. "Remember, we're talking about an election that can be determined by 300 or 400 votes. So, 50 here, 50 there, 50 there, pretty soon, you've stolen an election."

While one state GOP official said the texts appeared to signal a get-out-the-vote operation, Democrats are on edge because Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the state's top elections official, is a Trump ally and the Republican nominee for governor. He's in a dead heat with Democratic state Sen. Laura Kelly after defeating GOP Gov. Jeff Colyer in the August primary by only 343 votes out of more than 317,000 cast.
..

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politic ... 18365.html

[shinatoo]

I'm for legal immigration, I think it makes our country stronger and more interesting. However, I am also for higher wages, which will be a by-product of there being more jobs than workers. Hard to balance.

[cityscape]

Completely agree. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades and have now flipped the corner of there being more available jobs than workers to fill them. We need immigration (legal) to support this country as we continue to age as a nation. The workers outside of the baby boomer generation don't have great enough numbers to support the baby boomers through their retirement. It is simple math. We need immigrants to take the jobs being left behind to support our economy. Plain and simple.
...

Be careful cityscape, phuqueue says that human beings shouldn't be participants in any sort of national economic goals or purposes. Having enough workers available to support retirees is bad! He'll accuse you of not having any humanity.

Ha. Very true.

[phuqueue]

You rail on capitalism but then advocate for anyone to come here and work, letting the best worker take the job...the very basis of capitalism. And I’m fine with that if I didn’t see a very real negative social impact on other countries. There also is a large social welfare cost for those left out of the workforce but wanting to stay in this market, likely poor minorities. I don’t doubt that you are advocating for these immigrants out of heart for humanity and those in a terrible economic situation. I have the same desire for them to have full, productive lives and families.

If you want to talk about "the very basis of capitalism," it is actually just to make a profit, which is only connected indirectly, if at all, to being the best worker, or having the best product, or whatever. People assume that competition is an intrinsic feature of capitalism (it isn't) and that the "best" competitor always wins (he/she/it doesn't). But this is beside the point, I didn't join this discussion to "rail against capitalism" (though I'm happy to do so another time).

You keep stressing this "negative impact" on other countries but you have yet to explain how this impact is meant to occur, except that you assume all of the "best" people in every less developed country will come here and stay here. You're gonna have to show your work on that one. We already know that many immigrants are just migrant workers who cross back and forth to the extent they're able to, and it's reasonable to think more would if they could. Even those who are here permanently send a lot of money back home, which can contribute to "development" there. Meanwhile, is current restrictive immigration policy driving "development" in other countries? It's one thing to think, intuitively, that "the best" would leave and this would hamper development, but are they staying and developing the country now? Or are they leaving anyway (to let their real skills wither while they do unskilled, low wage manual labor under the table because it's the only work they can get without status), or simply being oppressed or killed at home? I mean if you're going to argue for status quo then you have to make the case that status quo is actually doing what you think it will.

The unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in half a century (granted that the actual quality of the jobs people have has gotten much worse, but that's a capitalism issue, not an immigration issue), so the idea that immigrants will impose "a large social welfare cost" on citizens who can't find jobs is not really supported by reality. There are also not a finite amount of jobs to go around in the first place -- an immigrant who is living and working here will necessarily consume goods and services that will require yet more people to be hired to provide them.

I just don’t think removing them from the situation instead of trying to help the situation in place is the best solution.

I trust the people who are actually living in "the situation" to find the best solution for themselves.

Completely agree. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades and have now flipped the corner of there being more available jobs than workers to fill them. We need immigration (legal) to support this country as we continue to age as a nation. The workers outside of the baby boomer generation don't have great enough numbers to support the baby boomers through their retirement. It is simple math. We need immigrants to take the jobs being left behind to support our economy. Plain and simple.
...

Be careful cityscape, phuqueue says that human beings shouldn't be participants in any sort of national economic goals or purposes. Having enough workers available to support retirees is bad! He'll accuse you of not having any humanity.

No, I just said they aren't tools to accomplish your policy goals. I usually think of you as a very good boarder with your heart in the right place, so I'm kind of surprised by the bad faith that you're engaging in now. I don't have a problem with acknowledging the positive economic effects that immigrants have -- I have repeatedly acknowledged them myself. I do have a problem with dehumanizing immigrants and treating them as nothing more than economic goods who should be forcibly placed in whichever rust belt town is most rapidly hemorrhaging population.

I also don't know how, now of all times, you can honestly believe that the government would exercise that kind of power in good faith. We've got DHS stealing children at the border and sending them to prison camps in hopes that this will dissuade people from trying to come here. If the government were forced to accept immigrants but empowered to say "you can live where we tell you to live or you can go home," what makes you think they wouldn't just start placing immigrants in, like, the Aleutian Islands or somewhere?

[beautyfromashes]

Child trafficking, remittance dependence, loss of cultural heritage, family seperation and breakdown, drug trade work...there are so many negatives to migration.

I used to work in third world countries in an aid capacity. Americans are the most generous people in the world but the most sloppy with how they help. We act with our heart. Many times we make things worse. Just inviting everyone here because it will help individuals in the short term and feed the need to be a caregiver for the world is not the best action.

[cityscape]

Child trafficking, remittance dependence, loss of cultural heritage, family seperation and breakdown, drug trade work...there are so many negatives to migration.

I used to work in third world countries in an aid capacity. Americans are the most generous people in the world but the most sloppy with how they help. We act with our heart. Many times we make things worse. Just inviting everyone here because it will help individuals in the short term and feed the need to be a caregiver for the world is not the best action.

Thank you for proving my earlier point that we have to address the problem at the source. Which means working with what little government is left in some of these countries and offering incentives or assistance to organizations willing to 'right the ship'.

[beautyfromashes]

Thank you for proving my earlier point that we have to address the problem at the source. Which means working with what little government is left in some of these countries and offering incentives or assistance to organizations willing to 'right the ship'.

Which makes the threat to pull aid by Trump so terrible.

[FangKC]

phuqueue wrote:
I do have a problem with dehumanizing immigrants and treating them as nothing more than economic goods who should be forcibly placed in whichever rust belt town is most rapidly hemorrhaging population.

No one is forcing them. Making conditions regarding work visas is hardly forcing them to do things. They can decide not to accept the conditions. Most foreign nationals receiving work visas are not refugees fleeing strife. Even refugees fleeing peril often don't have a choice where they will live in the USA. Refugees are often sent to cities where some organization will sponsor them, and they have little choice about that.

Our government already has been making conditions on people coming into this country to live and work in recent decade--as well as using various incentives. I have examples ready, with links to sources, if you don't know this. I am trying to resist a long reply educating you. They are long-standing and accepted policies, and certainly include ones that fulfill our nation's needs and economic goals. I also have examples ready that show how the federal government decrees/compels/requires US citizens to do all kinds of things they might not want to do--including making decisions about where one lives.

[FangKC]

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.

Costa Rica and Uruguay are ranked the most stable democracies in Central and South America.

https://www.americasquarterly.org/conte ... in-america

Investopedia says Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay are the safest places for retirees to live--based on UN studies.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/p ... merica.asp

My Mexican friends and neighbors have told me that some Mexican states, and cities, are safer and more stable than others, and levels of corruption can vary greatly depending on where you are in the country.

Another point that needs to be made is that some Mexicans, who were formerly living as illegal non-residents in the USA, have returned to Mexico because in some areas economic conditions have improved. It often depends on where they were from originally. Some Mexican states, like American states, have more economic problems, and higher rates of unemployment and poverty.

[phuqueue]

Child trafficking, remittance dependence, loss of cultural heritage, family seperation and breakdown, drug trade work...there are so many negatives to migration.

I used to work in third world countries in an aid capacity. Americans are the most generous people in the world but the most sloppy with how they help. We act with our heart. Many times we make things worse. Just inviting everyone here because it will help individuals in the short term and feed the need to be a caregiver for the world is not the best action.

Even granting your list of "negatives," each of these things (except maybe "loss of cultural heritage" -- I'm not really sure what that one is meant to refer to) is already happening under the current restrictive immigration policies. Most of them are happening because of the current restrictive immigration policies and would be alleviated by allowing immigration to take place out in the open.

phuqueue wrote:
I do have a problem with dehumanizing immigrants and treating them as nothing more than economic goods who should be forcibly placed in whichever rust belt town is most rapidly hemorrhaging population.

No one is forcing them. Making conditions regarding work visas is hardly forcing them to do things. They can decide not to accept the conditions. Most foreign nationals receiving work visas are not refugees fleeing strife. Even refugees fleeing peril often don't have a choice where they will live in the USA. Refugees are often sent to cities where some organization will sponsor them, and they have little choice about that.

Our government already has been making conditions on people coming into this country to live and work in recent decade--as well as using various incentives. I have examples ready, with links to sources, if you don't know this. I am trying to resist a long reply educating you. They are long-standing and accepted policies, and certainly include ones that fulfill our nation's needs and economic goals. I also have examples ready that show how the federal government decrees/compels/requires US citizens to do all kinds of things they might not want to do--including making decisions about where one lives.

There is a very big difference between refugees going to where their sponsor organizations are, and refugees going to wherever the federal government tells them they have to go. Plenty of people (even citizens!) don't have a "choice," in any meaningful sense of the word, about where they live, for any number of reasons -- but none of those reasons are, "because the feds said so." You are welcome to post as many examples as you want of whatever you want, but unless any of them show the federal government saying "Bob must live in Rochester or leave the country," which is what you're proposing, I'm not sure how persuasive they'll be. And hey, if you do have such an example then maybe you'll prove me wrong in my doubts that the federal government can exercise this power, but still not about whether or not they ought to.

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.

Costa Rica and Uruguay are ranked the most stable democracies in Central and South America.

https://www.americasquarterly.org/conte ... in-america

Investopedia says Chile, Costa Rica, and Uruguay are the safest places for retirees to live--based on UN studies.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/p ... merica.asp

My Mexican friends and neighbors have told me that some Mexican states, and cities, are safer and more stable than others, and levels of corruption can vary greatly depending on where you are in the country.

Another point that needs to be made is that some Mexicans, who were formerly living as illegal non-residents in the USA, have returned to Mexico because in some areas economic conditions have improved. It often depends on where they were from originally. Some Mexican states, like American states, have more economic problems, and higher rates of unemployment and poverty.

From Honduras, Uruguay is 4000 miles away -- literally 4x the distance to the US -- and aside from the distance, it also requires crossing much more difficult terrain (e.g. you won't even get into South America without crossing through the Darien Gap). Chile (that is, just to get across the Chilean border, not to make it to e.g. Santiago or Valparaiso) is 2500 miles and presents more terrain challenges. I think it's a stretch to consider either of these countries as being in the same "region" as Honduras or Guatemala, and in any case, it's obvious why immigrants from those countries wouldn't consider them plausible destinations.

Costa Rica, and also Panama, are both relatively stable, relatively well-developed countries, which are, combined, about the same size as New York City -- that is, they might be great for US retirees, but have neither the capacity nor the economic opportunity to absorb immigrants by the tens of thousands, which Mexico (and obviously America) can and do.

[beautyfromashes]

Most of them are happening because of the current restrictive immigration policies and would be alleviated by allowing immigration to take place out in the open.

What restrictive immigration policies?! We’re letting everyone in, either to receive asylum or to be processed (lost) in our immigration/legal system? That is the exact reason you are seeing migration, because there is easy access.

[phuqueue]

Most of them are happening because of the current restrictive immigration policies and would be alleviated by allowing immigration to take place out in the open.

What restrictive immigration policies?! We’re letting everyone in, either to receive asylum or to be processed (lost) in our immigration/legal system? That is the exact reason you are seeing migration, because there is easy access.

That right there is a ludicrous post. We're not "letting" people in, people are getting in despite our restrictive policies. That is extremely different from the kind of immigration system that I and (I presume) others here are advocating. The sorts of abuses that you noted previously -- human and drug trafficking, family separation, etc -- are not an inherent feature of somebody moving from one country to another, they are the result of our immigration policies driving immigration underground. And immigration occurs not because of "easy access" but because immigrants consider the situation they'll face here -- undocumented status and all -- to be preferable to staying where they are. They will continue to come until that's not the case. The Trump admin also understands this, which is why they are trying to make coming here as miserable as possible (e.g. by stealing children), to change the calculus for would-be immigrants.

[beautyfromashes]

That right there is a ludicrous post. We're not "letting" people in, people are getting in despite our restrictive policies.

So, you’re saying 12 Million people have entered our country despite it being SO restrictive. That seems like a terrible job done by our government. It’s been nice talking with you, but you’ve gone too crazy for me. You’ve already admitted you want everyone to enter freely except for a quick security scan. I should have stopped the discussion there.

[mean]

I don't really have any skin in this argument, but it seems almost comically obvious that restrictions on behavior (which is to say, laws) don't exist with an eye to stopping those behaviors, they exist to establish a framework within which people who do things the government doesn't want them to do can be punished. So... yeah, of course immigration laws being restrictive doesn't stop people coming here any more than heroin being illegal stops people doing heroin, or murder being illegal stops people being murdered, and to expect it to be otherwise seems a little bewildering to me.