|
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 October 06 2013 14:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 02:39 oneofthem wrote:
let's be serious. republicans are not intent on fixing entitlements in an intelligent manner. it's a matter of ideology for them. Republicans do not want to fix entitlement spending. Declare current attempts unworkable and callous, maintain a studied detachment from their unsustainable growth in spending, and do nothing but demonize the efforts (In this very same thread, all the food stamp reform was touted as cuts by the media). Return to the beginning: Republicans aren't serious about fixing entitlements until we deem their efforts as fixes. The cracks were visible in the 2012 election. + Show Spoiler +. Representatives like Ryan are intent on fixing runaway spending before its growth causes insolvency, benefit cuts, and related. If the programs weren't running bankrupt and projected long-term growths in Debt to GDP, then it would be ideology. The Democrats are more insistent on the preservation of their political power in the near term than the stability of the programs in the long term. For that, they oppose every meaningful effort for reforms. It took the threat of government shutdowns and political defeat to manage the last reform in that area in the 90s.
Paul Ryan's plan has no such intent, it was an imaginary plan, used wholly for election purposes to rally behind him people who dont read budgets that closely. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-unrealistic-assumptions-behind-paul-ryans-budget-numbers/2011/08/25/gIQAEZrePS_blog.html
|
The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship.
Here.
California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick.
|
I find it slightly ironic that the same people who generally fear a gun registry because the gov would have a list to come take guns also don't want undocumented immigrants to be databased (from which they could potentially get rounded up and deported)
I would think those people would be the biggest advocates for getting photo's and addresses for all the undocumented immigrants they could...
|
On October 06 2013 18:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it slightly ironic that the same people who generally fear a gun registry because the gov would have a list to come take guns also don't want undocumented immigrants to be databased (from which they could potentially get rounded up and deported)
I would think those people would be the biggest advocates for getting photo's and addresses for all the undocumented immigrants they could...
I'm not really sure what you are getting at. The two aren't related, since the state is not going to turn them over (especially CA).
Espeically with this law:
"Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions"
These laws aren't going to deal with illegal immigration, they are going to (in a backdoor way) increase it. It's just insanity that people who aren't even legal citizens can practice law for AND against legal citizens, get licenses, be protected from the feds by the state, and serve on juries where American citizens are being tried. Moreover, WHY do this? It's not even like this was a pressing issue. It's insanity.
|
On October 06 2013 18:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 18:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it slightly ironic that the same people who generally fear a gun registry because the gov would have a list to come take guns also don't want undocumented immigrants to be databased (from which they could potentially get rounded up and deported)
I would think those people would be the biggest advocates for getting photo's and addresses for all the undocumented immigrants they could... I'm not really sure what you are getting at. The two aren't related, since the state is not going to turn them over (especially CA). Espeically with this law: Show nested quote + "Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions" These laws aren't going to deal with illegal immigration, they are going to (in a backdoor way) increase it. It's just insanity that people who aren't even legal citizens can practice law for AND against legal citizens, get licenses, be protected from the feds by the state, and serve on juries where American citizens are being tried. Moreover, WHY do this? It's not even like this was a pressing issue. It's insanity.
Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away (let alone demonize them) so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty
|
On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick.
I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence.
|
On October 06 2013 18:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
I find it slightly ironic that the same people who generally fear a gun registry because the gov would have a list to come take guns also don't want undocumented immigrants to be databased (from which they could potentially get rounded up and deported)
I would think those people would be the biggest advocates for getting photo's and addresses for all the undocumented immigrants they could...
From a perspective of social welfare, gun control and/or banning handguns would be a large step towards reducing gun-related crime (there may be subsequent rise in substitute crimes like knifings).
When discussing undocumented immigrants, actually reforming the current immigration system, and especially the green card process, is necessary, given undocumented migration is merely a symptom of a problem (economic differentials and specifically outdated immigration quotas/legal barriers to entry). Documenting the undocumented is important, but that's something that's already occurring heavily, what with Obama stepping up on Bush-era policies (in an effort to appease and develop a working consensus with the Republicans), while immigration reform is a long ways off, and is desperately needed. But I am a radical who advocates for open borders (because opening up labor mobility would, in economic terms, be huge for the world economy), so take desperately with a grain of salt. I may just be somewhat frustrated with my own interactions with INS.
Meanwhile, the politicians continue to play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling. Fucking fantastic. Ugh.
|
On October 06 2013 19:04 JayMillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick. I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence.
That begs the question: why support illegal immigration? Why not legal immigration? But you are from the Bay Area, I'm from Socal, it's not quite as insane down here. But still, my question remains, WHY?!!
Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty
The border is really violent, we should start by clearing that up. I don't know how our immigration policy is a joke (besides the fact that Obama doesn't really like our laws so he just ignores them), at least by the way you mean it. It's not so harsh, but it really should be. So many people want to come here that we can have high standards. Moreover, we keep hearing about how the economy is moving away from unskilled jobs, so why are we bringing more in? The US does not exist for Mexico, it exists for U.S. citizens, and their best interests should be kept in mind. Not the interests of a bunch of people who ignore the legal process to get here and ship the money back down south without paying taxes on it. We still let in more people and are more lenient than almost every other country on earth, we aren't exactly turning them all away.
Just tell me in what world it makes ANY sense to pass these laws.
Edit: Amnesty makes more sense than this crap.
|
On October 06 2013 10:16 Nevuk wrote:
This gets more into world politics but if the Austrian School is basically irrelevant why did every European (+US) government randomly become so pro-austerity after 2008? I know there are neo-classical economists arguing for the movement but it's weird to get a grasp on mentally. Was it mostly just the Germans? (I've seen them blamed more than any other country). The 2010 Rogoff paper we were discussing can't have been the entire reason considering the austerity movement was already well-under way before that paper was published.
edit - Also, I miss the old ridiculous presidential convention nomination format where we got stuff like William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech.
Lack of imagination, ideology, pressure from dogmatic markets and opinion makers, interests and lobbying from people who benefit from it, and wrong economic assertions.
Rogoff and Reinhard paper, saying that growth and debt are closely linked, was gospel for years, before turning to be crippled with mistakes, and, basically, all wrong.
We lost 5 years because of this austerity dogma. It's a disaster. Even now you meet a lot of completely clueless people who believe strongly that we are in a debt crisis. That's absolutely ridiculous.
|
On October 06 2013 19:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 19:04 JayMillz wrote:On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick. I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence. That begs the question: why support illegal immigration? Why not legal immigration? But you are from the Bay Area, I'm from Socal, it's not quite as insane down here. But still, my question remains, WHY?!! Show nested quote +Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty The border is really violent, we should start by clearing that up. I don't know how our immigration policy is a joke (besides the fact that Obama doesn't really like our laws so he just ignores them), at least by the way you mean it. It's not so harsh, but it really should be. So many people want to come here that we can have high standards. Moreover, we keep hearing about how the economy is moving away from unskilled jobs, so why are we bringing more in? The US does not exist for Mexico, it exists for U.S. citizens, and their best interests should be kept in mind. Not the interests of a bunch of people who ignore the legal process to get here and ship the money back down south without paying taxes on it. We still let in more people and are more lenient than almost every other country on earth, we aren't exactly turning them all away. Just tell me in what world it makes ANY sense to pass these laws. Edit: Amnesty makes more sense than this crap.
Well that says it all right there in bold.
If that's your understanding I don't think there is anything to gain from responding to the rest.
Being part native it kinda makes my brain swim when I hear non-Natives rant on about immigration. It's like when Fox News and white Americans hate on Obama for meeting with people like Eva Longoria and discussing immigration
Admittedly I don't know if you are native, but based on your rhetoric I sincerely doubt it. If so though, bitch on
|
On October 06 2013 19:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 19:12 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2013 19:04 JayMillz wrote:On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick. I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence. That begs the question: why support illegal immigration? Why not legal immigration? But you are from the Bay Area, I'm from Socal, it's not quite as insane down here. But still, my question remains, WHY?!! Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty The border is really violent, we should start by clearing that up. I don't know how our immigration policy is a joke (besides the fact that Obama doesn't really like our laws so he just ignores them), at least by the way you mean it. It's not so harsh, but it really should be. So many people want to come here that we can have high standards. Moreover, we keep hearing about how the economy is moving away from unskilled jobs, so why are we bringing more in? The US does not exist for Mexico, it exists for U.S. citizens, and their best interests should be kept in mind. Not the interests of a bunch of people who ignore the legal process to get here and ship the money back down south without paying taxes on it. We still let in more people and are more lenient than almost every other country on earth, we aren't exactly turning them all away. Just tell me in what world it makes ANY sense to pass these laws. Edit: Amnesty makes more sense than this crap. Well that says it all right there in bold. If that's your understanding I don't think there is anything to gain from responding to the rest. Being part native it kinda makes my brain swim when I hear non-Natives rant on about immigration. It's like when Fox News and white Americans hate on Obama for meeting with people like Eva Longoria and discussing immigration Admittedly I don't know if you are native, but based on your rhetoric I sincerely doubt it. If so though, bitch on
I don't know what you mean by native. I am a US citizen by birth, and no, I don't have any native american blood in me. I take that to be your question. The "white americans" bit confuses me. Especially since I haven't the foggiest idea what Eva Longoria can contribute to the discussion.
I'm not here to discuss the past, but the nation as it is. You aren't really telling me anything.
Obama ignores statutory law (and gets a pat on the back from the Supreme Court) as he goes ahead and lowers enforcement, changes the way it's measured, and implements part of a bill that failed in congress. That's what I mean.
We let LOTS of people in, like I said, we are more lax than Mexico itself when it comes to immigration. The broken part of our system is the fact that it's not orderly, and the border is really violent.
edit: It's way past bed time, but I really am curious what you mean. I'll be back tomorrow if I don't see a reply soon.
|
On October 06 2013 19:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 19:04 JayMillz wrote:On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick. I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence. That begs the question: why support illegal immigration? Why not legal immigration? But you are from the Bay Area, I'm from Socal, it's not quite as insane down here. But still, my question remains, WHY?!!
Probably because they disagree with the current ossified legal system that's in place for immigration, and also because current federal policies demand local law enforcement to comply with and work with immigration agencies. The issue is that this strains relations with local communities, as police lose the trust and cooperation of the neighborhoods they work with, which severely strains their capabilities (the most effective police work is when law enforcement is able to work with the community, not against it).
Show nested quote +Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty The border is really violent, we should start by clearing that up. I don't know how our immigration policy is a joke (besides the fact that Obama doesn't really like our laws so he just ignores them), at least by the way you mean it. It's not so harsh, but it really should be. So many people want to come here that we can have high standards. Moreover, we keep hearing about how the economy is moving away from unskilled jobs, so why are we bringing more in? The US does not exist for Mexico, it exists for U.S. citizens, and their best interests should be kept in mind. Not the interests of a bunch of people who ignore the legal process to get here and ship the money back down south without paying taxes on it. We still let in more people and are more lenient than almost every other country on earth, we aren't exactly turning them all away. Just tell me in what world it makes ANY sense to pass these laws.
And this underlies a key lack of understanding of migration.
1) Undocumented migration greatly benefits the US in terms of economics. Immigration is never bad for the economy. They fill structurally embedded demand from industries which would otherwise be unable to find enough domestic labor willing to fill. Something Wayne Cornelius terms the "Three D's", aka Dirty, Dangerous, and Demeaning jobs. Think agriculture, construction, "pink collar" jobs, and landscape management. These are industries that will ALWAYS need to exist, and always have a demand for low skill labor. However, the working conditions or preconditions ensure . When talking about agricultural work, the pay is decent if you're solely looking at income. However, you're working extremely long hours, the work is at times grueling, and it's all temporary and seasonal, which will require you to move around to find another farm in need of an extra pair of hands with no job security. In terms of post-industrialization, the movement of the domestic labor force towards what is now a "knowledge-based economy" remains accurate, however, structurally embedded labor demand in these industries are the main impetus for low-skill migration.
Furthermore, they do pay into the system. On average, undocumented migrants generate more revenue for the government then they take out (because of payroll/sales/property taxes etc., and denial of social services). And again, they are still generating economic demand for goods and services, and working in jobs that would otherwise (by in large) be unfilled, and ensure that the costs of living of US citizens are lowered. Remittances are still generated, but currently, migration flows into the US are largely driven by family reunification purposes. Again, the economic argument against migration makes no sense. If the world was to have open borders, we're talking at least DOUBLING world GDP, by all the economic models.
2) The issue with high standards is that it necessarily targets high skill laborers (when labor demand for migrants is, for the most part, decidedly low skill), and to be quite frank, the hoops you have to jump through are ridiculous. But moreover, the current Visa/Green Card process basically ensures that low skill labor demands in the US remain unfilled.
As an aside, it was significantly easier for me and my family to obtain Canadian citizenship than it was to obtain US citizenship. Significantly easier.
3) Obama has been cracking down on undocumented migration, actually (despite his election year promises). Thus far, his immigration policies could accurately be described as Bush-era on crack. We deport 400,000 individuals a year now, and it has steadily increased in the years that Obama's been in office (not the other way around). You can look at the Secure Communities and similar policies, but ICE and other agencies have been given more discretion than before. The notion that Obama's been soft on undocumented migrants is a false one. He's been harder on it (if only in an effort to get Republicans to support immigration reform). Despite the fact that the academic community who studies migration (from sociologists to the security studies) have largely agreed that strict border controls don't do shit, when the problems with the US border stem largely from current US drug policies, and the structure of the US immigration system. Have you seen the flowchart to a green cardflowchart to a green card?
I'll also refer you to D'Appollonia's "Frontiers of Fear", but the securitization of migration has actually made us less secure as a whole. Securing the border is an entirely futile effort, but the border is symbolic, I get it. It keeps the Others out.
On October 06 2013 19:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 10:16 Nevuk wrote:
This gets more into world politics but if the Austrian School is basically irrelevant why did every European (+US) government randomly become so pro-austerity after 2008? I know there are neo-classical economists arguing for the movement but it's weird to get a grasp on mentally. Was it mostly just the Germans? (I've seen them blamed more than any other country). The 2010 Rogoff paper we were discussing can't have been the entire reason considering the austerity movement was already well-under way before that paper was published.
edit - Also, I miss the old ridiculous presidential convention nomination format where we got stuff like William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold speech. Lack of imagination, ideology, pressure from dogmatic markets and opinion makers, interests and lobbying from people who benefit from it, and wrong economic assertions. Rogoff and Reinhard paper, saying that growth and debt are closely linked, was gospel for years, before turning to be crippled with mistakes, and, basically, all wrong. We lost 5 years because of this austerity dogma. It's a disaster. Even now you meet a lot of completely clueless people who believe strongly that we are in a debt crisis. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Lowering debt in the mid-/long- term is an important goal, however, given the numerous entitlement and demographic trends that are going to hit (health problems, retiring baby boomers in the US, an effectively shrinking labor force in Europe another). Managing the debt is important, but at this point in time, it's not like the US is insolvent at the slightest. The debt is a long term problem that is going to require someone to have the guts to overhaul our entire pensions and healthcare system, but no one will (so the can will be kicked down the road).
|
On October 06 2013 19:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 19:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 06 2013 19:12 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2013 19:04 JayMillz wrote:On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick. I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence. That begs the question: why support illegal immigration? Why not legal immigration? But you are from the Bay Area, I'm from Socal, it's not quite as insane down here. But still, my question remains, WHY?!! Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty The border is really violent, we should start by clearing that up. I don't know how our immigration policy is a joke (besides the fact that Obama doesn't really like our laws so he just ignores them), at least by the way you mean it. It's not so harsh, but it really should be. So many people want to come here that we can have high standards. Moreover, we keep hearing about how the economy is moving away from unskilled jobs, so why are we bringing more in? The US does not exist for Mexico, it exists for U.S. citizens, and their best interests should be kept in mind. Not the interests of a bunch of people who ignore the legal process to get here and ship the money back down south without paying taxes on it. We still let in more people and are more lenient than almost every other country on earth, we aren't exactly turning them all away. Just tell me in what world it makes ANY sense to pass these laws. Edit: Amnesty makes more sense than this crap. Well that says it all right there in bold. If that's your understanding I don't think there is anything to gain from responding to the rest. Being part native it kinda makes my brain swim when I hear non-Natives rant on about immigration. It's like when Fox News and white Americans hate on Obama for meeting with people like Eva Longoria and discussing immigration Admittedly I don't know if you are native, but based on your rhetoric I sincerely doubt it. If so though, bitch on I don't know what you mean by native. I am a US citizen by birth, and no, I don't have any native american blood in me. I take that to be your question. The "white americans" bit confuses me. Especially since I haven't the foggiest idea what Eva Longoria can contribute to the discussion. I'm not here to discuss the past, but the nation as it is. You aren't really telling me anything. Obama ignores statutory law (and gets a pat on the back from the Supreme Court) as he goes ahead and lowers enforcement, changes the way it's measured, and implements part of a bill that failed in congress. That's what I mean. We let LOTS of people in, like I said, we are more lax than Mexico itself when it comes to immigration. The broken part of our system is the fact that it's not orderly, and the border is really violent.
Ignorance rears it's ugly head yet again.
BTW most of the violence along the border has more to do with our retarded drug policies and the abject poverty of people than it does with immigration.
If you really want to reduce the violence on the border you should be focused on our drug policies and looking for ways to reduce the poverty of the people in the area.
Those two things would do more to resolve the violence than more guns or stricter immigration enforcement would ever accomplish on the border.
|
On October 06 2013 19:43 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 19:12 Introvert wrote:On October 06 2013 19:04 JayMillz wrote:On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick. I'm Californian, and I read the title of the article linked and barely batted an eye at it. You know, Californians (at least here in my part of the Bay Area) either are ambivalent about or support illegal immigration. If that isn't your cup of tea, go ahead and move to Texas, although that has politcal crazy men on the other side of the fence. That begs the question: why support illegal immigration? Why not legal immigration? But you are from the Bay Area, I'm from Socal, it's not quite as insane down here. But still, my question remains, WHY?!! Probably because they disagree with the current ossified legal system that's in place for immigration, and also because current federal policies demand local law enforcement to comply with and work with immigration agencies. The issue is that this strains relations with local communities, as police lose the trust and cooperation of the neighborhoods they work with, which severely strains their capabilities (the most effective police work is when law enforcement is able to work with the community, not against it). Show nested quote +Outside of immigrants who come and commit violent or dangerous crimes (which is a clear minority) I welcome them. Our immigration policy is a joke. Don't think we can really be mad at poor people coming here for jobs and to escape shitty governments.
Doesn't really make sense to turn them away so long as the inscription still resides on the Statue of Liberty The border is really violent, we should start by clearing that up. I don't know how our immigration policy is a joke (besides the fact that Obama doesn't really like our laws so he just ignores them), at least by the way you mean it. It's not so harsh, but it really should be. So many people want to come here that we can have high standards. Moreover, we keep hearing about how the economy is moving away from unskilled jobs, so why are we bringing more in? The US does not exist for Mexico, it exists for U.S. citizens, and their best interests should be kept in mind. Not the interests of a bunch of people who ignore the legal process to get here and ship the money back down south without paying taxes on it. We still let in more people and are more lenient than almost every other country on earth, we aren't exactly turning them all away. Just tell me in what world it makes ANY sense to pass these laws. And this underlies a key lack of understanding of migration. 1) Undocumented migration greatly benefits the US in terms of economics. Immigration is never bad for the economy. They fill structurally embedded demand from industries which would otherwise be unable to find enough domestic labor willing to fill. Something Wayne Cornelius terms the "Three D's", aka Dirty, Dangerous, and Demeaning jobs. Think agriculture, construction, "pink collar" jobs, and landscape management. These are industries that will ALWAYS need to exist, and always have a demand for low skill labor. However, the working conditions or preconditions ensure . When talking about agricultural work, the pay is decent if you're solely looking at income. However, you're working extremely long hours, the work is at times grueling, and it's all temporary and seasonal, which will require you to move around to find another farm in need of an extra pair of hands with no job security. In terms of post-industrialization, the movement of the domestic labor force towards what is now a "knowledge-based economy" remains accurate, however, structurally embedded labor demand in these industries are the main impetus for low-skill migration. Furthermore, they do pay into the system. On average, undocumented migrants generate more revenue for the government then they take out (because of payroll/sales/property taxes etc., and denial of social services). And again, they are still generating economic demand for goods and services, and working in jobs that would otherwise (by in large) be unfilled, and ensure that the costs of living of US citizens are lowered. Remittances are still generated, but currently, migration flows into the US are largely driven by family reunification purposes. 2) The issue with high standards is that it necessarily targets high skill laborers (when labor demand for migrants is, for the most part, decidedly low skill), and to be quite frank, the hoops you have to jump through are ridiculous. But moreover, the current Visa/Green Card process basically ensures that low skill labor demands in the US remain unfilled. As an aside, it was significantly easier for me and my family to obtain Canadian citizenship than it was to obtain US citizenship. Significantly easier. 3) Obama has been cracking down on undocumented migration, actually (despite his election year promises). Thus far, his immigrations could accurately be described as Bush-era on crack. We deport 400,000 individuals a year now, and it has steadily increased in the years that Obama's been in office (not the other way around). You can look at the Secure Communities and similar policies, but ICE and other agencies have been given more discretion than before. The notion that Obama's been soft on undocumented migrants is a false one. He's been harder on it (if only in an effort to get Republicans to support immigration reform). Which is also an entirely futile effort, but the border is symbolic, I get it.
I for one, support legal immigration. Lots of it. And we have lots of it. The fact that it is illegal means a lot to me. I don't deny that the low wages they work for help the economy in some sense (like slave labor in China!). But I'm not for open borders, especially if these people all end up with amnesty. If they make too little, they will go on welfare programs. And for some reason, the democrats really want them to be eligible for it... even when not a citizen. But one of the main reasons is that I'm not for rewarding law breakers. I'd be ok with amnesty and all that jazz if the democrats would have agreed to secure the border, it baffles the mind that securing our own border is something to even be debated. Reagan supported amnesty, but was also promised that the border would be secured. That didn't happen, and here we are again. If there weren't so many illegal immigrants, we wouldn't have to worry about this in the first place.
But I'm referring to this article in particular. Why do they need law licenses? Driver's licenses? This state just does things that don't even have any rationale to them. Why are they being rewarded while the lawful immigrants wait years and years? Why bother to even wait?
And ICE is unhappy with the administration. Sorry some of the links are NRO, but it's late and I need sleep- these came up first in the google search.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/18/obamas-immigrant-deportation-numbers-tell-differen/?page=all
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ice-no-confidence-vote-amnesty-immigration-illegal-union-obama/2010/08/09/id/367046
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350829/ice-vs-obama-deportations-andrew-stiles
There have also been reports that Obama deported more by changing the numbers. I'll find more tomorrow. I think it was a house report, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.
I don't disagree with focusing on violent offenders, but I do disagree with the idea of making ICE afraid to do its job.
I will try to find better sources tomorrow, but this should at least get you searching.
Ignorance rears it's ugly head yet again.
BTW most of the violence along the border has more to do with our retarded drug policies and the abject poverty of people than it does with immigration.
If you really want to reduce the violence on the border you should be focused our drug policies and looking for ways to reduce the poverty of the people in the area.
Those two things would do more to resolve the violence than more guns or stricter immigration enforcement would ever accomplish on the border.
Stricter immigration enforcement WOULD help. More agents, harder to penetrate border--> less cartel border activity.
You still didn't explain your other comment.
However, my main QUESTION TO BOTH OF YOU is: why on earth do we need to give these things to illegals? They aren't even citizens, can't we at least do that first?
gn everyone!
|
You obviously have very little in terms of experience with immigrants and/or have not heard about their immigration process. If you did, you would know how stupidly hard it is to immigrate into the US legally, especially if you're not an educated western European.
I'm fine with illegal immigrants because:
A) The system takes forever, you can get denied for no real reason, and it fucks over both highly educated/skilled workers as well as unskilled. Landed a job at IBM as a software engineer? Oh, no time to get a green card, job will be gone before you get one (years). Try H1B visa. If you get one you can't switch jobs for fear of getting kicked out so maybe IBM underpays you cause they know you're stuck with them. Oh wait capped, sorry no getting in 4u. MBA from Kenya? Lol time to roll the dice and pray.
B) This is anecdotal but the illegal immigrants I do know work their asses off, and don't really receive much from the government. They pay their sales taxes and essentially pay their property taxes but they are far too wary of the risk of getting kicked out to apply for government assistance. They don't come here for welfare, they come here to work. Look at what happened to the number of illegal immigrants in the US after the financial crisis.
C) It's hard to worry so much about illegal immigration when I see legal US citizens sitting on their asses just leeching off whatever source of money they can find without working. Never saw so much of this until I stayed in lily white South Carolina for a bit.
|
Our immigration system is retarded, and both parties are retarded in how they handle it. Democrats pander to illegal aliens. Half of the republicans do the same, and the other half simply want to shut the border. Almost no one talks about making legal immigration easier. Democrats won't do it because unions oppose it. Republicans are simply too stupid to effectively make it an issue that they could win on. It is simply insane that we make it so hard for highly educated immigrants to come to this country, when they ultimately will pay more in taxes than most Americans.
|
On October 06 2013 20:26 Introvert wrote:
*SNIP*
First, as someone who has gone through the immigration system before, no. While the absolute numbers of legal immigrants seems high, it's pretty much a drop in the bucket, and the US can absorb much more (and should, if an aging population is anything to be concerned about; economically, Europe in particular probably wants to rapidly induce immigration, given trends that are going to shrink their total labor force), and the system is difficult at best to navigate. Especially so if you don't come from a Western developed country (like I wasn't).
And no, immigration enforcement does nothing. given the fact that immigration enforcement breaks up between (ineffectually) policing the border, rigorously checking Visas to prevent overstays (40% of illegal immigrants in the US are from overstayed visas, more in Europe), and searching/deporting immigrants currently, it's a poor way at addressing it. It doesn't stem the flow of migrants into the US especially the non-contiguous nature of "the wall", given the number of people who simply walk around it (and merely forces them into more dangerous routes or build either a ladder or go under it), and drug cartels in particular are only mildly inconvenienced by it. It really only serves to increase the risk and incentives to traffick people across the border, and basically prevents the circular migration of temporary works between the US and Mexico (which subsequently leads to a growing population of undocumented workers in the US). It does not stem either cartel activity nor illegal migration. It serves only to generate political points to pander to a public who has no actual understanding of migration and immigration issues. Again, there is a large corpus of academic literature which highlights just how ineffectual border controls are in stemming migration. I again point you towards D'Appollonia's "Frontiers of Fear" for a recent critique of it.
As for your comment on citizens, absolutely. As an unrepentant statist, I don't condone undocumented migration. It should be documented and it should be legal, functioning under state supervision. The problem is that current US immigration system is broken and unable to do so in its current form. Undocumented migration is a function and symptom of the problem, not the problem in and of itself. Amnesty is not the way to go (a pathway to citizenship that puts them into the waitlist, sure, but not amnesty). There needs to be major immigration reform, not ridiculous notions of blanket amnesty or throwing money at a border which is impossible to securitize, and causes significant problems for legal migrants already. For instance, do you know how hard it is to get a Visa into the US (or Europe) these days, if you aren't from a Western developed country? Even for just a tourist visa, the barriers to entry even for a mid-income country such as China is significant, while actually getting a work visa is pretty impossible, given you need a employment sponsor, and the waitlist to actually get the visa takes years. Which, for any employer, why wait years in the first place?
The immigration system requires major overhaul, from dramatically expanding a temporary worker visa system focused especially on low income, low skill workers, and not the constant talk of expanding/reducing backlog for high skill immigration into the US, like Silicon Valley wants (it's good, but not the problem, given despite the waitlist, high-skill workers are pretty much the only ones whom are actually able to enter the US in the first place). Opening up the system so that the populations that are currently disbarred from even attempting to apply (aka the ones most prone to illegal migration) have a legal avenue to enter into the US and fill the low-skill work their looking for is by itself a major step towards resolving the issue entirely, as it gives them an avenue to actually enter the US legally on a seasonal basis, and then leave. That's circular migration in a nutshell, and recent efforts to "secure the border" has greatly disrupting the traditional cycle of migration between the US and Mexico. If you want to address illegal immigration, you talk about immigration reform, not amnesty OR securing the border (which again is useless besides to make the government seem like it's doing something).
Also, drivers licenses and other such ID are readily available if you are here legally, on a green card or a temporary visa, it doesn't matter. The issue with opening such IDs over to undocumented migrants is to...well...document them.
EDIT: I should also clarify by open borders, I mean removing and greatly expanding legal migration dramatically, across the world, because the potential economic benefits, particularly for developing states, are massive, and a major step towards equalizing global inequity.
|
Ok, you guys are right. I had a friend who just went through the process of bringing someone here to marry from Brazil, it was hellish. My mistake. I do remember that now. As well as a friend with a work visa (and was a PhD!) that wen through hell to renew. At 4 am you forget some of this stuff :/
However, my problem is with the pandering, as well as effectual border control. I'd advocate that Congress finish the wall they said they would build before going straight to internal enforcement. But as the links show, ICE contends they aren't even being allowed to do their jobs in the country.
Borders is one of things that makes a country, so again, it baffles the mind that congress is so unwilling to work on it. Well, only kind of. It will be hard, but with real security (expensive, yes) the numbers could be drastically reduced.
As to documentation: If they get documented, then they are going to stay and be semi-legal. Still being rewarded by breaking the law. But I know the farmers like them, so congress likes them. I despise the idea of amnesty, but it may be the only way to deal with the problem, I just want to make sure we only ever need to do it one more time.
Also, there is the possibility of a court challenge: Some jerk is going to go all the way to the supreme court and say "we are second class citizens!" and the court is going legalize everyone who is"documented" but illegal.
But my question was mainly these new state laws. This will "document" them for the state, but the state/local and federal government are not going to work together (both because Obama put a stop to that and because one of the laws CA just passed won't let them). Combine that with the ruling that says border enforcement is SOLELY the domain of the federal government... So again, rewarding them for illegal actions. Not a fan.
I don't disagree that they want what's best, I don't disagree that they work their tails off, but I do disagree that they should be given anything but emergency medical care as a reward for coming over. I just don't like breaking the rules when there are people legitimately in line.
|
On October 06 2013 18:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +The California Supreme Court, which finalizes requests of applicants to be licensed as a lawyer in California, is now authorized to approve qualified applicants regardless of their immigration status.
Other new laws prohibit law enforcement officials from detaining immigrants based on federal government instructions except in cases of serious crimes or convictions, and make it illegal for employers to retaliate against workers on the basis of their citizenship. Here.California is a beautiful state, but it's run by a bunch of nutcases. I should leave quick.
making it illegal for employees to retaliate based on immigration status is about ensuring basic humane working conditions. if an employer is using illegal immigrants he shouldnt be allowed to underpay/mistreat/neglect them by threatening to retaliate based on immigration status.
also who cares if they can practice law? california is one of the few states that lets anyone, even those without a degree, take the bar. in case you havent noticed there is a huge need for public interest lawyers willing to work for those who hve little or no money. its a good thing if immigrants want to get licensed for cases dealing w deportation/employment status/defender work.
edit: typed on phone so
|
John Boehner is a nutshell: My job before the country.
You can see the desperation he is in in hopes of the Democrats bucking, which they won't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
