|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 26 2014 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 09:12 jellyjello wrote:On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants (except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Agreed on the immigration reform. However, the border must be secured first, or at least show a concerted and genuine effort to securing the border. Now if only we could get a Congress and President that would think likewise.
Or anyone for that matter with a plan.
Any plan for securing the border at all.
|
On August 26 2014 09:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 09:12 jellyjello wrote:On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants (except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Agreed on the immigration reform. However, the border must be secured first, or at least show a concerted and genuine effort to securing the border. Now if only we could get a Congress and President that would think likewise.
I think a bipartisan senate and the president have already moved forward on this issue, it's the house that can't come to a resolution...
I think this is one where it would be republicans holding back totally unrelated aspects of immigration from moving forward independently. For instance, how many skilled workers we allow from India, or students from Korea has nothing to with the border between the US and Mexico.
Although I wouldn't be surprised if Reed wanted the credit and so was in no rush to pass pieces either.
|
On August 26 2014 09:12 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants (except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Agreed on the immigration reform. However, the border must be secured first, or at least show a concerted and genuine effort to securing the border.
lolwut?
Obama has the most border security compared to all past US Presidents. Where the hell do you people get this stuff?
|
On August 26 2014 09:45 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 09:12 jellyjello wrote:On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants (except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Agreed on the immigration reform. However, the border must be secured first, or at least show a concerted and genuine effort to securing the border. lolwut? Obama has the most border security compared to all past US Presidents. Where the hell do you people get this stuff?
Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this.
On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants ( except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be.
Most Tea Party people I know favor bringing in highly skilled workers- they object to bringing in poor people who are illiterate in their own language, not to mention English. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is just you having no idea what you are talking about, yet again. Edit: maybe I'm just being a big meanie here.
"Immigration reform" involves things besides amnesty- if it really needs to be "comprehensive" then it should address both border security AND reforming any issues in the legal process.
But security must come first, any sane country would recognize that. Edit: Security before amnesty, or the like. Not before legal reform.
Edit: for those poorer, potential immigrants, some conservatives suggest changing and enhancing the work visa program, as well as seasonal visas/ work passes. They aren't opposed to poor people coming in, but it needs to be demonstrated that they will be a net gain for the country, and not a loss. This isn't the era of Ellis Island anymore, too many things have changed.
|
|
|
On August 26 2014 10:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 09:45 aksfjh wrote:On August 26 2014 09:12 jellyjello wrote:On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants (except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Agreed on the immigration reform. However, the border must be secured first, or at least show a concerted and genuine effort to securing the border. lolwut? Obama has the most border security compared to all past US Presidents. Where the hell do you people get this stuff? Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants ( except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Most Tea Party people I know favor bringing in highly skilled workers- they object to bringing in poor people who are illiterate in their own language, not to mention English. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is just you having no idea what you are talking about, yet again. "Immigration reform" involves things besides amnesty- if it really needs to be "comprehensive" then it should address both border security AND reforming any issues in the legal process. But security must come first, any sane country would recognize that. Edit: Security before amnesty, or the like. Not before legal reform. Edit: for those poorer, potential immigrants, some conservatives suggest changing and enhancing the work visa program, as well as seasonal visas/ work passes. They aren't opposed to poor people coming in, but it needs to be demonstrated that they will be a net gain for the country, and not a loss. This isn't the era of Ellis Island anymore, too many things have changed.
You're basically agreeing with him (if you read everything before what is bolded), and then telling him he's wrong, "yet again", despite the fact you're both saying the same thing. ..
|
On August 26 2014 11:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 10:25 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2014 09:45 aksfjh wrote:On August 26 2014 09:12 jellyjello wrote:On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants (except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Agreed on the immigration reform. However, the border must be secured first, or at least show a concerted and genuine effort to securing the border. lolwut? Obama has the most border security compared to all past US Presidents. Where the hell do you people get this stuff? Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. On August 26 2014 08:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 26 2014 07:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 26 2014 06:53 Nyxisto wrote:
I'm not talking about taking anybody just for the sake of it, but I guess... you could at least try to keep the actual ideals intact? Taking all the smart Asians is already Canada's métier. Most immigrants fall into the category of 'family reunification.' We could actually do a much better job attracting smart Asians if we really wanted to. Many come here for higher ed (US attracts lots of international students) and then struggle to either grab an H1-B visa or a permanent immigrant status. Best I could tell there are leftovers of both from year to year. When there are less of one the slots go to the other. I don't think anyone would really argue that we couldn't allow more highly skilled immigrants ( except maybe the most extreme of the tea party). I don't think leaving American-Immigrant families intentionally fractured plays particularly well on either side, so reducing unification seems like political suicide also. Immigration reform is desperately needed (totally independent of any border issues) for a multitude of reasons, the longer people on the right live in denial of that fact the worse off their party will be. Most Tea Party people I know favor bringing in highly skilled workers- they object to bringing in poor people who are illiterate in their own language, not to mention English. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is just you having no idea what you are talking about, yet again. "Immigration reform" involves things besides amnesty- if it really needs to be "comprehensive" then it should address both border security AND reforming any issues in the legal process. But security must come first, any sane country would recognize that. Edit: Security before amnesty, or the like. Not before legal reform. Edit: for those poorer, potential immigrants, some conservatives suggest changing and enhancing the work visa program, as well as seasonal visas/ work passes. They aren't opposed to poor people coming in, but it needs to be demonstrated that they will be a net gain for the country, and not a loss. This isn't the era of Ellis Island anymore, too many things have changed. You're basically agreeing with him (if you read everything before what is bolded), and then telling him he's wrong, "yet again", despite the fact you're both saying the same thing. ..
Once you interact with GH, you understand how this works (espeically since the Tea Party is regularly accused of being anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, racist, etc.). I'm making it very clear that I know of precisely zero people in my own life and about zero people of real influence who hold that view.
Suffice it to say that I was using the opportunity to crystallize the thought that was being formed and using it as a springboard for the elaboration I provided later in the post.
Edit: though I suppose you could say I was being a little harsh.
|
Good News!
1. Burden On The Second Amendment
When the 10-day waiting period laws apply, they prohibit every person who purchases a firearm from taking possession of that firearm for a minimum of 10 days. One cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms without actually possessing a firearm. The purchased firearm cannot be used by the purchaser for any purpose for at least 10 days.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, in some cases, due to additional costs and disruptions to schedules, the 10-day waiting period may cause individuals to forego the opportunity to purchase a firearm, and thereby forego the exercise of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, the 10-day waiting period burdens the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. It is Defendant’s burden to show that the 10-day waiting period either falls outside the scope of Second Amendment protections as historically understood or fits within one of several categories of longstanding regulations that are presumptively lawful. Defendant has not met her burden.
.....
i. Background Check
Given the current BOF [California Bureau of Firearms] staffing levels, the potential additional research involved in reviewing a DROS [Dealer Record of Sales] application, and the possible response times from other agencies and states, 10-days is a sufficient period of time in the clear majority of cases for BOF to complete a background check and approve or deny a DROS application.
....
Finally, of the approximately 99% of DROS applications that are approved, no new disqualifying information was obtained during the 10-day waiting period. Of the approximately 1% of DROS applications that are denied, there is no evidence regarding when in the 10-day waiting period that the disqualifying information was obtained, i.e. was the disqualifying information obtained during the initial BFEC or was it obtained late in the process as part of a re-check. Requiring an approved DROS applicant to wait the full 10-days, when the application is otherwise approved and the applicant already has a firearm in the AFS system, on the chance that new information might come in, is unduly speculative and anecdotal.
....
There is no evidence that a “cooling off period,” such as that provided by the 10-day waiting period, prevents impulsive acts of violence by individuals who already possess a firearm. A waiting period for a newly purchased firearm will not deter an individual from committing impulsive acts of violence with a separate firearm that is already in his or her possession.
...
None of the submitted social science studies/excerpts advocate for a 10-day waiting period, or attempt to defend a 10-day waiting period as being supported by clinical or empirical evidence. The studies that are supportive of waiting periods are supportive in theory and seem to assume that the individual does not already possess a firearm.
...
Moreover, the AFS system is available to law enforcement personnel on a real time basis in the field, and law enforcement considers the AFS system to be reliable. If a law enforcement officer in the field who is about to confront a suspect can use and rely on the AFS system and proceed with more caution, then it is unknown why Cal. DOJ or BOF cannot also assume that an otherwise approved DROS applicant is still in possession of a firearm that is in the AFS system. Considering the absence of relevant data, law enforcement’s real time reliance on the AFS system, and an otherwise approved background check, it can reasonably be assumed that a DROS applicant who has a firearm in the AFS system is still in possession of that firearm.
....
There is no evidence that the legislature implemented the waiting period laws in order to give law enforcement the opportunity to investigate straw purchases.
....
Applying the full 10-day waiting period to all transactions for purposes of investigating a straw purchase, in the absence of any reason to suspect that a straw purchase is in fact occurring, is too overbroad.
If law enforcement officers personally observe what they believe to be a straw purchase, be it at a gun show or at a gun store, they may intercede during the purchase process.
If the legislature believes that law enforcement should have additional time in which to investigate a straw purchase, then a statute could be enacted that permits law enforcement to cause a delay in the approval of a DROS application, if law enforcement has reason to believe that a straw purchase is occurring.
Source
Source #2
|
I think NPR has a story on it. Governments sure like money....
|
On August 26 2014 10:25 Introvert wrote:
Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this.
I think you meant to say:
Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA is Obama automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this.
DACA has nothing to do with the border, but has everything to do with people that have already been here (illegally) for years. The border is secured, and that's your complaint. If you want to change your complaint to "Mexicans aren't being shipped back to Mexico in large enough numbers," by all means, do so.
|
|
|
On August 26 2014 12:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 12:02 aksfjh wrote:On August 26 2014 10:25 Introvert wrote:
Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. I think you meant to say: Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA is Obama automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. DACA has nothing to do with the border, but has everything to do with people that have already been here (illegally) for years. The border is secured, and that's your complaint. If you want to change your complaint to "Mexicans aren't being shipped back to Mexico in large enough numbers," by all means, do so. DACA is an excellent example of the fact that Obama really doesn't want to send anyone home. I've gone over the numbers on deportations and the like before with GreenHorizons, but the gist is that fun spins of language make things more difficult to discern. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=1142#22833Additionally: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-DeportationsI have to admit, Obama's played quite the game. Immigrant groups whine he deports too much, conservatives complain it's too little. I gather the immigrant groups say deporter-in-chief with a smile and a wink. Sure, the La Raza types have always wanted more action, lawful or not, faster (just look at front page linked petitions). Any radical has got to be pushing on multiple fronts to stay relevant and keep their support flowing. So Obama's present course is beneficial but not cheered; always pound the message: more, faster, equality, rights, privileges, and power.
|
Immigration is just one of those issues to pull disparate groups of conservative-minded people under the Republican umbrella. Corporations don't want to send the immigrants home any more than Obama, but as long as you can shift the narrative so that millions of working-class people think their jobs are being taken away and millions of conservatives (and racists) think a flood of poor immigrants are coming in to mooch off the system, you can manufacture impotent rage and bluster under one banner. It's even funnier that when xdaunt et al. were having a discussion about "black culture" one of the implicit foils was the hard-working poor immigrant who stayed out of trouble and worked 16 hour days on little pay, presumably to get ahead and send their kids to schools paid for by other peoples' tax dollars and capture some of the American Dream. Now that the focus shifts a little we are talking about how all these moochers looking for handouts are flooding across the border and not getting deported. The reality is that George Bush, from Texas, no less, didn't do much differently from what Obama has done, which is to be expected considering that the immigrants provide a lot of cheap labor to capitalists who want to drive the price of labor in America down.
|
On August 26 2014 12:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 12:14 Introvert wrote:On August 26 2014 12:02 aksfjh wrote:On August 26 2014 10:25 Introvert wrote:
Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. I think you meant to say: Do we have to go over this again? Any President who does DACA is Obama automatically gets a mark down, for starters. But we've been over this. DACA has nothing to do with the border, but has everything to do with people that have already been here (illegally) for years. The border is secured, and that's your complaint. If you want to change your complaint to "Mexicans aren't being shipped back to Mexico in large enough numbers," by all means, do so. DACA is an excellent example of the fact that Obama really doesn't want to send anyone home. I've gone over the numbers on deportations and the like before with GreenHorizons, but the gist is that fun spins of language make things more difficult to discern. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-megathread?page=1142#22833Additionally: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-DeportationsI have to admit, Obama's played quite the game. Immigrant groups whine he deports too much, conservatives complain it's too little. I gather the immigrant groups say deporter-in-chief with a smile and a wink. Sure, the La Raza types have always wanted more action, lawful or not, faster (just look at front page linked petitions). Any radical has got to be pushing on multiple fronts to stay relevant and keep their support flowing. So Obama's present course is beneficial but not cheered; always pound the message: more, faster, equality, rights, privileges, and power.
Now now, we must make the argument in stages. I like to assume sincerity from those whose disagree with me until the proof is undeniable. Although just naming yourself "La Raza" starts you on a bad footing.
Personally, I agree. It's all politics- these groups will never really stop supporting Obama while they can manufacture a "demand" for comprehensive immigration reform.
|
On August 26 2014 12:36 IgnE wrote:
Immigration is just one of those issues to pull disparate groups of conservative-minded people under the Republican umbrella. Corporations don't want to send the immigrants home any more than Obama, but as long as you can shift the narrative so that millions of working-class people think their jobs are being taken away and millions of conservatives (and racists) think a flood of poor immigrants are coming in to mooch off the system, you can manufacture impotent rage and bluster under one banner. It's even funnier that when xdaunt et al. were having a discussion about "black culture" one of the implicit foils was the hard-working poor immigrant who stayed out of trouble and worked 16 hour days on little pay, presumably to get ahead and send their kids to schools paid for by other peoples' tax dollars and capture some of the American Dream. Now that the focus shifts a little we are talking about how all these moochers looking for handouts are flooding across the border and not getting deported. The reality is that George Bush, from Texas, no less, didn't do much differently from what Obama has done, which is to be expected considering that the immigrants provide a lot of cheap labor to capitalists who want to drive the price of labor in America down.
Conservative, Tea Party types have been harping on the Republican party for being sellouts on this issue for some time. Recall who it was that helped stop Bush's amnesty push.
It seems to me that this issue is actually very divisive within the GOP. At this point it seems that the only thing stopping all this "reform" are conservatives (and the American people, who express their desire for border control and maybe even pathways to citizenship, etc.)
In fact, your point about lower labor prices is one of the things that bothers conservatives- illegal laborers allow those who hire illegal immigrants to skirt the system and law. These low wages make the jobs less attractive to citizens, which in turn makes it MORE beneficial for illegal immigrants. "Americans won't take those jobs!" is what we hear. It seems to me ( I am not an economist) that one of the reasons they won't work the jobs is because the wages suck. And that is true because those employers are not really made to offer competitive wages for those jobs.
|
I'm posting again! This story is just too good to pass up though, lol.
The British embassy in Washington has apologised after tweeting a picture of a White House cake surrounded by sparklers, "commemorating" the burning of the building 200 years ago.
The US presidential residence was set on fire by British forces in 1814 during the "War of 1812" with the United States.
A number of Twitter users said the embassy's tweet was "in poor taste".
The embassy later said: "Apologies for earlier Tweet."
It added: "We meant to mark an event in history & celebrate our strong friendship today."
Source
|
On August 26 2014 12:47 Introvert wrote:I'm posting again! This story is just too good to pass up though, lol. Show nested quote +The British embassy in Washington has apologised after tweeting a picture of a White House cake surrounded by sparklers, "commemorating" the burning of the building 200 years ago.
The US presidential residence was set on fire by British forces in 1814 during the "War of 1812" with the United States.
A number of Twitter users said the embassy's tweet was "in poor taste".
The embassy later said: "Apologies for earlier Tweet."
It added: "We meant to mark an event in history & celebrate our strong friendship today." Source
I actually think it should of started a twitter beef leading to all out nuclear war but I suppose an apology works too ;P
As for your other comments, looks like someone summed it up pretty well. I have to point to you to a few places so you can see the rights opposition (ironically I kind of agree with them here) to the H1B visa cap being raised, and about immigration of not just poor people (who we all know they are not advocates of immigrating) but high skilled laborers too.
The H1B visa is a truly bad idea unless justified by a demonstrable lack of skills in the American workforce. The top tier talent in the world has access to an uncapped visa called the O, for “outstanding,” visa. What the H1B does is provide entry level and journeyman skills and it does so at wages significantly lower than those demanded by Americans.
http://www.redstate.com/2014/06/19/h1b-visas-bad-policy-bad-business/
Of course, Democrats want you to believe the concern of Americans being replaced by less expensive, foreign labor is just plain folly. However, Rochester Institute of Technology Professor Ronil Hira, who has been studying high-skilled immigration policy for more than a decade, has a differing view.
“The H-1B program is already huge. USCIS doesn’t know how many H-1Bs are here but analysts estimate that there are approximately 650,000 here right now. On top of that we know that approximately 120,000 new H-1Bs arrive every year,” Hira stated during his testimony on the Gang of Eight bill last April. “It is having significant adverse impacts on the American workforce, job opportunities and wages.”
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/all-issues/news/immigration-and-jobs-myth-2-american-workers-wont-be-displaced/
Listed under 40 reasons to oppose immigration reform #29 in part reads
S.744 doubles legal immigration within a decade after enactment
Turns out immigration doesn't divide as nicely along political lines as people might like. While you generally only see the opposition to all immigrants on youtube videos, comment sections, and smaller rallies, certain tea party factions (probably some liberal ones too) have no qualms about making their opposition to H1B's and permanent immigrants of all walks of life known.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/top-40-reasons-to-oppose-the-gang-of-eight-amnesty-bill/
|
On August 26 2014 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 12:47 Introvert wrote:I'm posting again! This story is just too good to pass up though, lol. The British embassy in Washington has apologised after tweeting a picture of a White House cake surrounded by sparklers, "commemorating" the burning of the building 200 years ago.
The US presidential residence was set on fire by British forces in 1814 during the "War of 1812" with the United States.
A number of Twitter users said the embassy's tweet was "in poor taste".
The embassy later said: "Apologies for earlier Tweet."
It added: "We meant to mark an event in history & celebrate our strong friendship today." Source I actually think it should of started a twitter beef leading to all out nuclear war but I suppose an apology works too ;P As for your other comments, looks like someone summed it up pretty well. I have to point to you to a few places so you can see the rights opposition (ironically I kind of agree with them here) to the H1B visa cap being raised, and about immigration of not just poor people (who we all know they are not advocates of immigrating) but high skilled laborers too. Show nested quote +The H1B visa is a truly bad idea unless justified by a demonstrable lack of skills in the American workforce. The top tier talent in the world has access to an uncapped visa called the O, for “outstanding,” visa. What the H1B does is provide entry level and journeyman skills and it does so at wages significantly lower than those demanded by Americans. http://www.redstate.com/2014/06/19/h1b-visas-bad-policy-bad-business/Show nested quote +Of course, Democrats want you to believe the concern of Americans being replaced by less expensive, foreign labor is just plain folly. However, Rochester Institute of Technology Professor Ronil Hira, who has been studying high-skilled immigration policy for more than a decade, has a differing view.
“The H-1B program is already huge. USCIS doesn’t know how many H-1Bs are here but analysts estimate that there are approximately 650,000 here right now. On top of that we know that approximately 120,000 new H-1Bs arrive every year,” Hira stated during his testimony on the Gang of Eight bill last April. “It is having significant adverse impacts on the American workforce, job opportunities and wages.” http://www.teapartypatriots.org/all-issues/news/immigration-and-jobs-myth-2-american-workers-wont-be-displaced/Listed under 40 reasons to oppose immigration reform #29 in part reads Turns out immigration doesn't divide as nicely along political lines as people might like. While you generally only see the opposition to all immigrants on youtube videos, comment sections, and smaller rallies, certain tea party factions (probably some liberal ones too) have no qualms about making their opposition to H1B's and permanent immigrants of all walks of life known. http://www.teapartypatriots.org/top-40-reasons-to-oppose-the-gang-of-eight-amnesty-bill/
I thought the tweet was hilarious. This needs to be a thing.
Immigration has never been divided nicely between the parties, you should have heard some of the Democrats of decades past 
Hmm, I should have been more clear. H-1B is a unique issue.
But here's where it gets tricky. In almost every piece of conservative piece about illegal immigration, the point is made that we want immigrants who will help contribute to our country.
I think I forgot the part of the H-1B, which has been a particular sticking point.
So I'll try to clarify a little bit. Conservatives favor immigration that is beneficial to the US- we want highly skilled immigrants who will become citizens and help better our country. Those laws and immigrant strategies that put American citizens at a disadvantage (work visas that are easily exploitable, such as those used by Facebook, Microsoft, etc) and illegal immigration are opposed by conservatives. Both for similar reasons- they price American citizens out of the job market. So as a general rule, what I said holds, but there are fine points.
Also, of course there are exceptions- you can find individuals who may disagree on any of these points. But generally speaking, conservatives want skilled immigrants to become Americans, not (if I may sound like IgnE for a second) imported wage slaves that negatively affect the American workers.
Also, as additional clarification. You will find many libertarians or libertarian leaning conservatives supporting massive influxes of immigrants, illegal or not. It has to do with their view of "the market" and needless to say, many conservatives disagree with them.
|
United States44052 Posts
On August 26 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
haha yeah, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. not really that anymore?
Back then
bring us your desperate, we got railroads to build and Americans aren't nearly desperate enough for that shit
now
stay home, we'll be outsourcing our shitty jobs to you shortly
The best part is all the USCIS offices have big banners in them saying "Securing America's Promise". Maybe someone was poking fun at immigration policy but I'm pretty sure that securing something means keeping it safe, locked away somewhere where random people can't get to it. They could have gone with "Fulfilling America's Promise" but nope, securing.
|
On August 26 2014 14:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
haha yeah, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. not really that anymore? Back then Show nested quote +bring us your desperate, we got railroads to build and Americans aren't nearly desperate enough for that shit now The best part is all the USCIS offices have big banners in them saying "Securing America's Promise". Maybe someone was poking fun at immigration policy but I'm pretty sure that securing something means keeping it safe, locked away somewhere where random people can't get to it. They could have gone with "Fulfilling America's Promise" but nope, securing.
As I've mentioned before, our immigration is horrifically fucked up. Both parties have it wrong and are retarded. The policy should be pretty damned simple: open the front door and close the backdoor. No politician will actually come out and say it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
