Immigration question for the Progressives

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Ken Carson » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:49 am

Swashy wrote:The answer to immigration reform is not putting up a wall it's opening channels. The solution isn't ending chain migration, lotteries etc. The solution is to be making the process easier to become an American. To the point where you cannot possibly **** it up and there is no need to be entering the United States illegally. Once you simplify the process and remove any need for illegality then you can implement a consequence. Such as that we make citizenship easy enough for even an illiterate to understand. We do that and put a date on it. By that point if a Mexican is subsequently found here illegally, he is immediately deported back to Mexico and hopefully with cooperation from the government, can face jail time. By that point the Mexicans have only themselves to blame for illegal occupation. Under the new rules illegal aliens of Mexico are deported because they'd have their chance to register legally without repercussion. If they don't then it's intentional law breaking. If you're going to PURPOSELY **** up a grace period there's no reason for that person to be here.

If Mexicans want to come here and work for piss poor wages and send it back home legally then that's their own right. As necessary you put in a stipulation such as they are disqualified from healthcare, food stamps, voting etc if they're here just to take American jobs and give it back to the motherland. You're more than welcome to live here and work here for the rest of your life but don't expect us to take care of your pregnant wife 7 months after your arrival because you are simply a Mexican nationalist with an American job and you happened to get her across the border legally. You don't take from the pot, not put back into it and then expect to take more. But if you want to make your money here in America and spend it here because you live here then that's an entirely different story. I don't know when that disqualification would kick in but there HAS TO be one. A limit has to come somewhere or else the system abuse would continue indefinitely. I know it's a hard situation but damn it there are limits to generosity

I have no problem with Mexicans. I have a problem with Mexicans breaking the law by coming here illegally and using the system. Simply create fair legislation and fair safeguards so you are lawfully justified to prevent abuse of the system and lawfully justified to take legal action against those who wish to do one or the other or both.

Make immigration so easy, a terrorist could do it!
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:25 am

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility

SNAP eligibility has never been extended to undocumented non-citizens. Specific requirements for non-citizens who may be eligible have changed substantially over the years and become more complicated in certain areas. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 limits eligibility for SNAP benefits to U.S. citizens and certain lawfully present non-citizens.

Generally, to qualify for SNAP, non-citizens must meet one of the following criteria:

Have lived in the United States for at least 5 years.
Be receiving disability-related assistance or benefits.
Be children under 18.
Additionally, these individuals must also satisfy other SNAP eligibility requirements such as income and resource limits in order to qualify for benefits.

If certain members of a household are ineligible for SNAP, State agencies must still determine eligibility for SNAP for any remaining household members who are seeking assistance.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 564 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Swashy » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:33 am

Ken Carson wrote:
Swashy wrote:The answer to immigration reform is not putting up a wall it's opening channels. The solution isn't ending chain migration, lotteries etc. The solution is to be making the process easier to become an American. To the point where you cannot possibly **** it up and there is no need to be entering the United States illegally. Once you simplify the process and remove any need for illegality then you can implement a consequence. Such as that we make citizenship easy enough for even an illiterate to understand. We do that and put a date on it. By that point if a Mexican is subsequently found here illegally, he is immediately deported back to Mexico and hopefully with cooperation from the government, can face jail time. By that point the Mexicans have only themselves to blame for illegal occupation. Under the new rules illegal aliens of Mexico are deported because they'd have their chance to register legally without repercussion. If they don't then it's intentional law breaking. If you're going to PURPOSELY **** up a grace period there's no reason for that person to be here.

If Mexicans want to come here and work for piss poor wages and send it back home legally then that's their own right. As necessary you put in a stipulation such as they are disqualified from healthcare, food stamps, voting etc if they're here just to take American jobs and give it back to the motherland. You're more than welcome to live here and work here for the rest of your life but don't expect us to take care of your pregnant wife 7 months after your arrival because you are simply a Mexican nationalist with an American job and you happened to get her across the border legally. You don't take from the pot, not put back into it and then expect to take more. But if you want to make your money here in America and spend it here because you live here then that's an entirely different story. I don't know when that disqualification would kick in but there HAS TO be one. A limit has to come somewhere or else the system abuse would continue indefinitely. I know it's a hard situation but damn it there are limits to generosity

I have no problem with Mexicans. I have a problem with Mexicans breaking the law by coming here illegally and using the system. Simply create fair legislation and fair safeguards so you are lawfully justified to prevent abuse of the system and lawfully justified to take legal action against those who wish to do one or the other or both.

Make immigration so easy, a terrorist could do it!


The Middle Eastern threat lives in Mexico now? Come on Ken don't be dense. This applies to MEXICANS. We're not EVER gonna stop sharing a border with them, their economy, living conditions and government aren't gonna suddenly get better. So we're going to continue to get Mexican immigrants. If we are to justify sending grandma and several small children between the ages of 3 and 6 back to the Mexican ghetto then you give a chance to become American citizens through an easier and more streamlined process. If they are already here illegally, temporarily waive legal action and allow them to apply for citizenship. A streamlined process then negates the need for Mexicans to illegally cross the border or be here illegally at all. You put a date on when deportation will begin for illegals. But if you first give them a chance and by that point everything else is their own damn fault. There is very little different between this and implementing a consequence to your children after several warnings. Except we are not dealing with children. We are dealing with grown ass adults who know full and well what they are doing. You have an easier process, sufficient time to to apply for citizenship AND the waiving of legal action against those who are already here illegally.

Like I said, Ken. I don't have any problem with Mexicans or anyone else who wants to come to this country and live within the law. I have a problem with illegal residence and abusing the system and I'd like to see to it that Mexican nationals are not granted access to our social programs if all they're gonna do is work here and send their money away.

And believe me Ken.... there's gonna be a A LOT of people deported.
Swashy
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:07 am

Swashy - You're certainly entitled to you opinion, but I'd challenge you to think through the long term ramifications when it comes lowering standards like you described.

Since the year 2000 the USA has taken in an average of 1 million LEGAL immigrants every year. Since the demand to reside in the USA and pursue the opportunities this country offers is higher than the # of immigrants we accept annually I don't see how lowering the standard benefits any US citizen or the overall republic itself. If anything we should raise the standard and that is where the subject of merit based immigration comes into play.

I don't see how rubber stamping citizenship for illiterates is in the best interest of the country when you have educated people already waiting in line. If we're going to prioritize candidates for citizenship, shouldn't it be those that are more qualified vice less qualified? By qualified I'm taking education level, able to understand our Constitution and ideals (thus more likely to easily assimilate to American culture), and ability to join the workforce more immediately vice those that can't or would require alot of taxpayer funded assistance to do so?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:16 am

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote: "The Wall" wasn't the reason I voted for Trump, so it getting built isn't a dealbreaker either way for me. From a political perspective it would certainly help him if he finds a way get it funded/built.

Because a Mexican drug cartel making millions in ill-gotten gains is going to walk up to the wall and say "Gosh! Guess we're done now!" and just cease operations. The wall is a massively expensive equivalent to a security sticker in a retail store. It's only going to stop the people that weren't really intent on breaking the law in the first place.


I'm not sure what you mean here?

Are you saying that people crossing the border illegally are unaware they are breaking the law? Or that they don't know they are crossing a boarder into another country?

My justification for supporting the wall is simply b/c physical barriers are an effective deterrent in mitigating trespassers. I know the property owners down there in additional to border security people support additional physical barriers. The semantics of how the additional physical barriers are constructed is not a big deal to me and will leave that to the DHS to figure out.

Our Congress (including many Dems like Obama, Schumer, and Hillary) all supported additional physical barriers about a decade ago. But now that Trump mentions a wall it triggers people. So it's as if additional fencing and barbed wire is OK, but a wall isn't. That seems like splitting hairs imo. I get the cost argument, I just think those making that argument intentionally undersell the effectiveness of physical barriers (as you did w/ your security sicker analogy imo). I believe putting additional physical barriers where there isn't a natural barrier would further mitigate human trafficking, illegal immigration, along with drugs and weapons coming in from Mexico. I agree that the cartels would still find ways to continue their business, but just because you can't eliminate 100% of a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't take any action imo.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:37 am

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Because a Mexican drug cartel making millions in ill-gotten gains is going to walk up to the wall and say "Gosh! Guess we're done now!" and just cease operations. The wall is a massively expensive equivalent to a security sticker in a retail store. It's only going to stop the people that weren't really intent on breaking the law in the first place.


I'm not sure what you mean here?

Are you saying that people crossing the border illegally are unaware they are breaking the law? Or that they don't know they are crossing a boarder into another country?

My justification for supporting the wall is simply b/c physical barriers are an effective deterrent in mitigating trespassers. I know the property owners down there in additional to border security people support additional physical barriers. The semantics of how the additional physical barriers are constructed is not a big deal to me and will leave that to the DHS to figure out.

Our Congress (including many Dems like Obama, Schumer, and Hillary) all supported additional physical barriers about a decade ago. But now that Trump mentions a wall it triggers people. So it's as if additional fencing and barbed wire is OK, but a wall isn't. That seems like splitting hairs imo. I get the cost argument, I just those making that argument intentionally undersell the effectiveness of physical barriers (as you did w/ your security sicker analogy). I believe putting additional physical barriers where there isn't a natural barrier would further mitigate human trafficking, illegal immigration, along with drugs and weapons coming in from Mexico. I agree that the cartels would still find ways to continue their business, but just because you can't eliminate 100% of a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't take any action imo.

What stops someone from simply peeling the security sticker something they want to shoplift?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Swashy » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:44 am

DreadNaught wrote:Swashy - You're certainly entitled to you opinion, but I'd challenge you to think through the long term ramifications when it comes lowering standards like you described.

Since the year 2000 the USA has taken in an average of 1 million LEGAL immigrants every year. Since the demand to reside in the USA and pursue the opportunities this country offers is higher than the # of immigrants we accept annually I don't see how lowering the standard benefits any US citizen or the overall republic itself. If anything we should raise the standard and that is where the subject of merit based immigration comes into play.

I don't see how rubber stamping citizenship for illiterates is in the best interest of the country when you have educated people already waiting in line. If we're going to prioritize candidates for citizenship, shouldn't it be those that are more qualified vice less qualified? By qualified I'm taking education level, able to understand our Constitution and ideals (thus more likely to easily assimilate to American culture), and ability to join the workforce more immediately vice those that can't or would require alot of taxpayer funded assistance to do so?


You raise a lot of great points but the problem is that the need to accept immigrants based on merit stems from a lot of internal problems. Like the fact that our education system is fucked because it not only costs too much but it's is ineffective. The fact there's so many people with degrees that degrees are essentially useless. The fact that the job market is drying up due to sending them overseas for cheaper wages and replacing what jobs are still here with machines. The fact that wages DO NOT meet the cost of living for an individual who lives alone. Make no mistake. You are absolutely right that we have MAJOR problems and can't afford to take in immigrants like we used to and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact we are built up and don't have much more room to grow as a developing country. We need to fix our problems ourselves so we don't have to look for qualified immigrants. Under recent times the two brothers who started my family in the United states were nothing more than poor German farmers who immigrated from Bavaria and couldn't speak a lick of English would probably be deemed unqualified to live here. It's a hard truth that needs changing.

To their credit at least Mexicans are willing to at least take the jobs that most Americans do not want. If you've ever seen the episode of South Park where they all literally say "**** it" and go back to Mexico I imagine we would start begging for them back no differently than what happened in the show. To me it's all about getting on the same page. If you wanna live here then great! Free world and free country. Just do so within the confines of the law. That's all I ask. If you're not gonna do it then be banished back to Mexico because we have enough problems as it is.

If we can make this a better America for everyone then everyone is gonna win and we truly do live up to our old reputation of being the greatest country in the world. We just gotta figure out how to do it
Swashy
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:47 am

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here?

Are you saying that people crossing the border illegally are unaware they are breaking the law? Or that they don't know they are crossing a boarder into another country?

My justification for supporting the wall is simply b/c physical barriers are an effective deterrent in mitigating trespassers. I know the property owners down there in additional to border security people support additional physical barriers. The semantics of how the additional physical barriers are constructed is not a big deal to me and will leave that to the DHS to figure out.

Our Congress (including many Dems like Obama, Schumer, and Hillary) all supported additional physical barriers about a decade ago. But now that Trump mentions a wall it triggers people. So it's as if additional fencing and barbed wire is OK, but a wall isn't. That seems like splitting hairs imo. I get the cost argument, I just those making that argument intentionally undersell the effectiveness of physical barriers (as you did w/ your security sicker analogy). I believe putting additional physical barriers where there isn't a natural barrier would further mitigate human trafficking, illegal immigration, along with drugs and weapons coming in from Mexico. I agree that the cartels would still find ways to continue their business, but just because you can't eliminate 100% of a problem doesn't mean you shouldn't take any action imo.

What stops someone from simply peeling the security sticker something they want to shoplift?

Not wanting to be a criminal. Pealing off a security sticker is INTENT to break the law, no?
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:53 am

DreadNaught wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:What stops someone from simply peeling the security sticker something they want to shoplift?

Not wanting to be a criminal. Pealing off a security sticker is INTENT to break the law, no?

So then what stops a drug cartel from tunnelling under, destroying wall sections, etc? Who does the wall really stop that validates the expense?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby NYBF » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:17 am

DreadNaught wrote: By qualified I'm taking education level


DreadNaught wrote: crossing a boarder
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby mdb1958 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:35 am

How many progressives would be willing to go on a 2 week RV camping trip into Mexico?
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby NYBF » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:36 am

Can we go to the Titty Twister?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:46 am

So back on the original topic, is there anything that the majority of progressives seem to agree on about immigration something that the conservatives feel is too over the top and unreasonable? I'm just trying to see where the majority of us are calling for wide open borders or crazy demands that would drive the creation of this thread.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:56 am

NYBF wrote:Can we go to the Titty Twister?



You had me at TItty
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:59 am

Swashy wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Swashy - You're certainly entitled to you opinion, but I'd challenge you to think through the long term ramifications when it comes lowering standards like you described.

Since the year 2000 the USA has taken in an average of 1 million LEGAL immigrants every year. Since the demand to reside in the USA and pursue the opportunities this country offers is higher than the # of immigrants we accept annually I don't see how lowering the standard benefits any US citizen or the overall republic itself. If anything we should raise the standard and that is where the subject of merit based immigration comes into play.

I don't see how rubber stamping citizenship for illiterates is in the best interest of the country when you have educated people already waiting in line. If we're going to prioritize candidates for citizenship, shouldn't it be those that are more qualified vice less qualified? By qualified I'm taking education level, able to understand our Constitution and ideals (thus more likely to easily assimilate to American culture), and ability to join the workforce more immediately vice those that can't or would require alot of taxpayer funded assistance to do so?


You raise a lot of great points but the problem is that the need to accept immigrants based on merit stems from a lot of internal problems. Like the fact that our education system is fucked because it not only costs too much but it's is ineffective. The fact there's so many people with degrees that degrees are essentially useless. The fact that the job market is drying up due to sending them overseas for cheaper wages and replacing what jobs are still here with machines. The fact that wages DO NOT meet the cost of living for an individual who lives alone. Make no mistake. You are absolutely right that we have MAJOR problems and can't afford to take in immigrants like we used to and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact we are built up and don't have much more room to grow as a developing country. We need to fix our problems ourselves so we don't have to look for qualified immigrants. Under recent times the two brothers who started my family in the United states were nothing more than poor German farmers who immigrated from Bavaria and couldn't speak a lick of English would probably be deemed unqualified to live here. It's a hard truth that needs changing.

To their credit at least Mexicans are willing to at least take the jobs that most Americans do not want. If you've ever seen the episode of South Park where they all literally say "**** it" and go back to Mexico I imagine we would start begging for them back no differently than what happened in the show. To me it's all about getting on the same page. If you wanna live here then great! Free world and free country. Just do so within the confines of the law. That's all I ask. If you're not gonna do it then be banished back to Mexico because we have enough problems as it is.

If we can make this a better America for everyone then everyone is gonna win and we truly do live up to our old reputation of being the greatest country in the world. We just gotta figure out how to do it


Image

You're confused, it's not that Mexicans are more willing to to do shitty jobs, its that Mexicans will do the job for cheaper because they're used to a lower standard of living, and would take $5/hr to do a shitty job in America over $1/hr to do an equally shitty job in Mexico. An American will do any job, just has to be at the right price. And that is why bringing over laborers, who are poor bargaining partners (to the rest of us) to this country is bad for the american worker. Their numbers (inherently lowers price per worker - simple supply/demand) and their acceptance of lower pay (poor bargaining) damages the value of american labor, and thus ability of an american worker to provide for his family and establish a healthy standard of living.
Last edited by beardmcdoug on Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:03 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:Not wanting to be a criminal. Pealing off a security sticker is INTENT to break the law, no?

So then what stops a drug cartel from tunnelling under, destroying wall sections, etc? Who does the wall really stop that validates the expense?

Oh, you're talking about the cartels. I thought that question was in response to what I asked you to clarify.
bucfanclw wrote: It's only going to stop the people that weren't really intent on breaking the law in the first place.

Who are these "people" in this statement and how is there intent not to break the law?

In regards to criminal enterprises, I've addressed that. Just b/c you can't eliminate a problem 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't take any action at all. I do understand your argument that you feel the effectiveness doesn't justify the cost. Since you like to use analogies, why do people live in gated communities (physical barriers) instead of just posting a sign out front of the neighborhood? You seem to be of the opinion that physical barriers are useless, I don't share that opinion. I think we agree they are not 100% effective. Just like with ANY security measure, criminals will always look to circumvent them.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Deuce » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:04 pm

I voted for Trump but I have thought the wall was a ploy this entire time. As in, he'll concede on the wall to get other things he wants and it'll be viewed as a "win" by the Dems.
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:06 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
NYBF wrote:Can we go to the Titty Twister?



You had me at TItty


That place get's weird after sunset, but I hear the scenery inside is to die for.

Spoiler:
Image
Last edited by DreadNaught on Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:07 pm

Deuce wrote:I voted for Trump but I have thought the wall was a ploy this entire time. As in, he'll concede on the wall to get other things he wants and it'll be viewed as a "win" by the Dems.


that's a great point. the wall is such a ludicrous bargaining chip, that he doesn't have any actual care to follow through with, so "losing" that chip, in exchange for tangible political wins is actually a brilliant strategy...
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:16 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
Deuce wrote:I voted for Trump but I have thought the wall was a ploy this entire time. As in, he'll concede on the wall to get other things he wants and it'll be viewed as a "win" by the Dems.


that's a great point. the wall is such a ludicrous bargaining chip, that he doesn't have any actual care to follow through with, so "losing" that chip, in exchange for tangible political wins is actually a brilliant strategy...


Negotiation 101. It's just the folks in DC have been so rigid for so long they refuse to find common ground on most issues. Imo there are alot issues where common ground can be found to improve upon the current laws/way of doing things. But when the fringes have too much influence in the party it's impossible to find that common ground.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Swashy » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:52 pm

beardmcdoug wrote:
Swashy wrote:
You raise a lot of great points but the problem is that the need to accept immigrants based on merit stems from a lot of internal problems. Like the fact that our education system is fucked because it not only costs too much but it's is ineffective. The fact there's so many people with degrees that degrees are essentially useless. The fact that the job market is drying up due to sending them overseas for cheaper wages and replacing what jobs are still here with machines. The fact that wages DO NOT meet the cost of living for an individual who lives alone. Make no mistake. You are absolutely right that we have MAJOR problems and can't afford to take in immigrants like we used to and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact we are built up and don't have much more room to grow as a developing country. We need to fix our problems ourselves so we don't have to look for qualified immigrants. Under recent times the two brothers who started my family in the United states were nothing more than poor German farmers who immigrated from Bavaria and couldn't speak a lick of English would probably be deemed unqualified to live here. It's a hard truth that needs changing.

To their credit at least Mexicans are willing to at least take the jobs that most Americans do not want. If you've ever seen the episode of South Park where they all literally say "**** it" and go back to Mexico I imagine we would start begging for them back no differently than what happened in the show. To me it's all about getting on the same page. If you wanna live here then great! Free world and free country. Just do so within the confines of the law. That's all I ask. If you're not gonna do it then be banished back to Mexico because we have enough problems as it is.

If we can make this a better America for everyone then everyone is gonna win and we truly do live up to our old reputation of being the greatest country in the world. We just gotta figure out how to do it


Image

You're confused, it's not that Mexicans are more willing to to do shitty jobs, its that Mexicans will do the job for cheaper because they're used to a lower standard of living, and would take $5/hr to do a shitty job in America over $1/hr to do an equally shitty job in Mexico. An American will do any job, just has to be at the right price. And that is why bringing over laborers, who are poor bargaining partners (to the rest of us) to this country is bad for the american worker. Their numbers (inherently lowers price per worker - simple supply/demand) and their acceptance of lower pay (poor bargaining) damages the value of american labor, and thus ability of an american worker to provide for his family and establish a healthy standard of living.


Good catch, you got me there. I went back and fact checked and it wasn't as high as I thought. It's old figures but I can't imagine there's been a super huge change since the study was conducted.

https://cis.org/Are-There-Really-Jobs-Americans-Wont-Do

And of course they'll work for less but I figured there was in fact a larger discrepancy in an unwillingness towards certain occupations versus simply working for less. Looks like I under-estimated. Although in my personal experience, it holds up to a brief sample size. In spring was doing manual work at the Hard Rock when I was between jobs. The Spanish people were so ***damn happy to even be working and everyone else seethed and complained. Not saying they were Mexicans but Spanish people in general don't shy away from hard work whereas all my nursing colleagues and college classmates would have horror stories about cleaning their toilets because Johnny would piss on the seat.
Swashy
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:11 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:59 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Because a Mexican drug cartel making millions in ill-gotten gains is going to walk up to the wall and say "Gosh! Guess we're done now!" and just cease operations. The wall is a massively expensive equivalent to a security sticker in a retail store. It's only going to stop the people that weren't really intent on breaking the law in the first place.

The same could be said about additional gun laws too, yet you still champion them.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9357
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:11 pm

Buc2 wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Because a Mexican drug cartel making millions in ill-gotten gains is going to walk up to the wall and say "Gosh! Guess we're done now!" and just cease operations. The wall is a massively expensive equivalent to a security sticker in a retail store. It's only going to stop the people that weren't really intent on breaking the law in the first place.

The same could be said about additional gun laws too, yet you still champion them.

I champion training and testing for gun licences. Try again, buddy.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby uscbucsfan » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:19 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Buc2 wrote:The same could be said about additional gun laws too, yet you still champion them.

I champion training and testing for gun licences. Try again, buddy.


Maybe he champions training and testing for immigration?

The wall stopping the cartel and increased gun laws are a pretty good analogy.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Buc2 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:22 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Buc2 wrote:The same could be said about additional gun laws too, yet you still champion them.

I champion training and testing for gun licences. Try again, buddy.

Would it not take more gun laws to make that happen? But, I get what you're saying. Sorry to have lumped you in with the gun control zealots.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9357
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby beardmcdoug » Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:58 pm

Swashy wrote:
beardmcdoug wrote:
Image

You're confused, it's not that Mexicans are more willing to to do shitty jobs, its that Mexicans will do the job for cheaper because they're used to a lower standard of living, and would take $5/hr to do a shitty job in America over $1/hr to do an equally shitty job in Mexico. An American will do any job, just has to be at the right price. And that is why bringing over laborers, who are poor bargaining partners (to the rest of us) to this country is bad for the american worker. Their numbers (inherently lowers price per worker - simple supply/demand) and their acceptance of lower pay (poor bargaining) damages the value of american labor, and thus ability of an american worker to provide for his family and establish a healthy standard of living.


Good catch, you got me there. I went back and fact checked and it wasn't as high as I thought. It's old figures but I can't imagine there's been a super huge change since the study was conducted.

https://cis.org/Are-There-Really-Jobs-Americans-Wont-Do

And of course they'll work for less but I figured there was in fact a larger discrepancy in an unwillingness towards certain occupations versus simply working for less. Looks like I under-estimated. Although in my personal experience, it holds up to a brief sample size. In spring was doing manual work at the Hard Rock when I was between jobs. The Spanish people were so ***damn happy to even be working and everyone else seethed and complained. Not saying they were Mexicans but Spanish people in general don't shy away from hard work whereas all my nursing colleagues and college classmates would have horror stories about cleaning their toilets because Johnny would piss on the seat.


oh yeah, I totally get where you're coming from - all comes down to 'survival', and who's been faced with hardship - true hardship - and who hasn't. cheers bud :drinkingcheers:
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby RedLeader » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:25 pm

Good grief. If a wall would just be a ‘security sticker’, what do you call what we have now?
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2177
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:35 pm

RedLeader wrote:Good grief. If a wall would just be a ‘security sticker’, what do you call what we have now?

Image
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Good God you wall proponents are dense. The wall is a massively expensive DETERRENT... like a security sticker. It won't stop the people we're really concerned with. It's only going to stop the desperate families that are just trying to work and pay taxes for a better life. We're not spending that money to stop guns or drugs because it won't even slow them down.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:30 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Good God you wall proponents are dense. The wall is a massively expensive DETERRENT... like a security sticker. It won't stop the people we're really concerned with. It's only going to stop the desperate families that are just trying to work and pay taxes for a better life. We're not spending that money to stop guns or drugs because it won't even slow them down.


I'm a physical barrier proponent! So were Obama, Hillary, Schumer and a bunch of other politicians you support until a few years ago.

Security stickers are massively expensive? (that's a terrible analogy fwiw)

Are these "desperate families that are just trying to work and pay taxes for a better life" the same "people" you were referencing earlier that don't intend to break the law (by breaking the law)? Or are they just one time law breakers and should be trusted not to do it again?

Your last sentence can't be validated, but you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I'd counter by saying the physical barriers that are already in place do in fact serve as a deterrent which is why the majority of border crossings on foot occur where there is no physical barrier as opposed to where there is fencing.

By your logic we should rip all the barriers down since it only prevents the "desperate families" from breaking our immigration laws and that any physical barrier is completely useless in stopping or even slowing down human trafficking, drugs, or guns coming in from Mexico.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdb1958 and 7 guests