|
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 February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post.
well it is snide, I don't call it deflection.
and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for.
|
On February 07 2017 00:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:So apparently "people are saying" (to the New York Times) that Trump's mad he wasn't fully briefed on the EO that put Bannon on the NSC. I do have to wonder if "not being fully briefed" actually means "he didn't realize people would make mean cartoons and call him a Bannon puppet."
Or he doesn't actually fully read all the EO's he is signing and just rubber stamped something Bannon put infront of him.
I consider either possibility likely.
|
On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective?
The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2017 00:21 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +John Yoo, a former Justice Department attorney known for writing legal memorandums on enhanced interrogation tactics known as the Torture Memos, says President Donald Trump has gone too far in his use of executive power.
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, Yoo argues that Trump's use of executive power is worrisome.
"He should understand the Constitution's grant of executive power," Yoo wrote, referencing Alexander Hamilton, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers, a series of essays on the Constitution.
"He should share Hamilton's vision of an energetic president leading the executive branch in a unified direction, rather than viewing the government as the enemy. He should realize that the Constitution channels the president toward protecting the nation from foreign threats, while cooperating with Congress on matters at home."
Yoo said Trump, as commander in chief, does not have the constitutional authority to order the construction of a border wall, nor does he have the power to terminate trade deals negotiated by Congress, like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Source
republicans in congress just care about tax cuts, particularly on the rich. it's a mercenary group
|
On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful.
Except, from all I've heard, that hypothetical has shaped your (unofficial) immigration policy for decades.
Illegal immigrants seem to be quite vital to a large portion of your agricultural and industrial manufacturing fields.
|
On February 07 2017 01:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful. Except, from all I've heard, that hypothetical has shaped your (unofficial) immigration policy for decades. Illegal immigrants seem to be quite vital to a large portion of your agricultural and industrial manufacturing fields.
Right, which is why I vehemently object to our current, corrupt immigration policy.
|
On February 07 2017 00:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:So apparently "people are saying" (to the New York Times) that Trump's mad he wasn't fully briefed on the EO that put Bannon on the NSC. I do have to wonder if "not being fully briefed" actually means "he didn't realize people would make mean cartoons and call him a Bannon puppet."
It seems that with every passing day, there's yet another thing that Trump refuses to read or research. It makes the conspiracy theory that Trump can't read more and more attractive to me... that not only does he speak at a 4th grade level, but he reads at one too.
|
On February 07 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 00:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:For reference, most metrics that I've seen have shown incoming illegal immigration from Mexico reaching a nadir in the past several years (here's one example from Pew). I think there's also some research showing that border-hopping is less and less of a problem compared to folks overstaying work visas. I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping. As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows. Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful. Except, from all I've heard, that hypothetical has shaped your (unofficial) immigration policy for decades. Illegal immigrants seem to be quite vital to a large portion of your agricultural and industrial manufacturing fields. Right, which is why I vehemently object to our current, corrupt immigration policy. What makes you think that the economic circumstances surrounding business decisions to seek out and hire illegal immigrants are going to be bettered by attempting to solve the problem from an immigration standpoint? Suddenly removing a large chunk of available labor without providing for some kind of replacement is a recipe for economic hardship, and in many of the rural areas that scrape by on industrial farm taxation, for example, things are likely going to get quite a bit more dire.
|
Norway28866 Posts
On February 06 2017 23:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2017 23:36 Simberto wrote:
We should really stop it with the "Trump says stupid stuff" tweets.
Yes, he says a lot of stupid stuff. All the time. But apparently, that does not matter to the people who elected him. And the rest already know that he constantly says stupid stuff, so one more thing doesn't really matter. And it really deludes the "Trump DOES stupid stuff" posts that are actually relevant. Trump just produces so much shit to be annoyed by that one should focus on the most important parts of his idiocy, because your ability to feel annoyed will run out a lot before trumps ability to churn out amazing quantities of A-grade bullshit like an industrial bullshit machine.
Focus on the parts that actually matter, which are when he does stuff, not when he says stuff. I think systematically exposing the fact that he has no regards for facts and lie all the fucking time is a good strategy. It might end up sinking in. Not for xDaunt like hardcore right wingers who will support him whatever he does, but I think he shouldn't get away with that; it will end up really hurting him.
xDaunt himself actually said 'All that said, I do think that Trump has a problematic relationship with the truth, and I don't like it because I do recognize the slippery slope pitfalls of what Trump is doing.' about a week ago. 
|
On February 07 2017 01:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 07 2017 01:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I like where you're going with metrics and sources, they're real important. You may recall in 2014 the big surge of unaccompanied minors was from Central America, not Mexico. Growth or steady numbers in illegal immigration across the Mexican border includes growing Central American numbers, which are not themselves Mexican nationals. As much as Trump wants to say Mexicans it's not just Mexicans border hopping.
As an aside, Pew is right when it sees a leveled-off illegal immigrant population: the problem has been going for so long and the population is so large that deaths are balancing new arrivals. Naturally, children of illegals born here are granted birthright citizenship so the total population of illegal immigrant origin grows.
Last I saw, visa overstays were 40% of total illegal immigration numbers. But it's about time for me to refresh my numbers from last time I did extensive research for debates. I don't know if Trump will raise deportation numbers for lawbreaking immigrants overstaying their visas, because the public pressure and consciousness isn't as high. I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US: 1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family 2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky. Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful. Except, from all I've heard, that hypothetical has shaped your (unofficial) immigration policy for decades. Illegal immigrants seem to be quite vital to a large portion of your agricultural and industrial manufacturing fields. Right, which is why I vehemently object to our current, corrupt immigration policy. What makes you think that the economic circumstances surrounding business decisions to seek out and hire illegal immigrants are going to be bettered by attempting to solve the problem from an immigration standpoint? Suddenly removing a large chunk of available labor without providing for some kind of replacement is a recipe for economic hardship, and in many of the rural areas that scrape by on industrial farm taxation, for example, things are likely going to get quite a bit more dire.
The businesses hiring illegal immigrants can and should be dealt with separately. Illegal immigration is a completely unacceptable solution to their problems.
|
On February 07 2017 01:04 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post. well it is snide, I don't call it deflection. and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for.
Any of them? You start your post with saying that danglars is wrong and then don't day why you say this. You then ignore the whole thing and say it's more of the same rhetoric without even giving context for what rhetoric or who's rhetoric. You then state trump is wrong and false and never even elaborate on it to provide anything other then that statement. Then you state that you understand why people elected trump but don't think he'll sucseed. Again no reason why no context or anything
Most of these are bearly connected to eachother and none of them have anything to really respond to or is a response to anyone else.
|
On February 07 2017 01:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:04 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post. well it is snide, I don't call it deflection. and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for. Any of them? You start your post with saying that danglars is wrong and then don't day why you say this. You then ignore the whole thing and say it's more of the same rhetoric without even giving context for what rhetoric or who's rhetoric. You then state trump is wrong and false and never even elaborate on it to provide anything other then that statement. Then you state that you understand why people elected trump but don't think he'll sucseed. Again no reason why no context or anything Most of these are bearly connected to eachother and none of them have anything to really respond to or is a response to anyone else.
I'd say there was a clear implicit point that trump's general lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues prevents him from being useful; also, the point in some of those cases was that the burden of proof was on danglars rather than myself.
They're mostly a point by point response to things danglars said, which were probably not any more useful than my own statements (I didn't direct quote because it's very hard to cut out one section of a post, and he'd replied to 3 people, and I didn't want to be replying to the whole mess or it makes the post hard to read). if there's nothing ot respond to people can just not respond, or they can ask for clarification/extension. but mostly the arguments between us are so well-tread that there'es little new to be said.
|
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it.
|
On February 07 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:38 farvacola wrote:On February 07 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 07 2017 01:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I wonder, which do conservatives think is less desirable to have in the US:
1. A hard working, tax paying, church-going Christian, undocumented, family
2. A welfare dependent, criminal, addicted, white family like you'd find in Owsley County, Kentucky.
Which family is better for the country? Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law. Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful. Except, from all I've heard, that hypothetical has shaped your (unofficial) immigration policy for decades. Illegal immigrants seem to be quite vital to a large portion of your agricultural and industrial manufacturing fields. Right, which is why I vehemently object to our current, corrupt immigration policy. What makes you think that the economic circumstances surrounding business decisions to seek out and hire illegal immigrants are going to be bettered by attempting to solve the problem from an immigration standpoint? Suddenly removing a large chunk of available labor without providing for some kind of replacement is a recipe for economic hardship, and in many of the rural areas that scrape by on industrial farm taxation, for example, things are likely going to get quite a bit more dire. The businesses hiring illegal immigrants can and should be dealt with separately. Illegal immigration is a completely unacceptable solution to their problems.
Frankly, I'm less concerned about the businesses themselves and more about the mostly rural communities that have come to rely on them for subsistence. Trump staked a lot of his claim on improving their fortunes and without concessions elsewhere, this singular in focus immigration tactic seems primed to do the opposite.
|
On February 07 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:56 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 01:04 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post. well it is snide, I don't call it deflection. and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for. Any of them? You start your post with saying that danglars is wrong and then don't day why you say this. You then ignore the whole thing and say it's more of the same rhetoric without even giving context for what rhetoric or who's rhetoric. You then state trump is wrong and false and never even elaborate on it to provide anything other then that statement. Then you state that you understand why people elected trump but don't think he'll sucseed. Again no reason why no context or anything Most of these are bearly connected to eachother and none of them have anything to really respond to or is a response to anyone else. I'd say there was a clear implicit point that trump's general lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues prevents him from being useful; also, the point in some of those cases was that the burden of proof was on danglars rather than myself. They're mostly a point by point response to things danglars said, which were probably not any more useful than my own statements (I didn't direct quote because it's very hard to cut out one section of a post, and he'd replied to 3 people, and I didn't want to be replying to the whole mess or it makes the post hard to read). if there's nothing ot respond to people can just not respond, or they can ask for clarification/extension. but mostly the arguments between us are so well-tread that there'es little new to be said.
But none of that works when it's just a series of statements. You need to provide context and reference if it's a point by point reponse. You can't expect a clear implicit point when it's your opinion or position. You can't shift the burden of proof when your not making arguments or making points beacuse there isn't anything to prove or refute.
I did ask for clarification. If there isn't anything new to say the burden is on the person making the post to make something new to say.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's misleading to analyze this situation at the level of nations. what's at issue isn't and never was polandball style frieindship or rivalry between 'nations', but the acceptable set of actions by states in both international and domestic context.
as always, no one wants to make an enemy of 'russia', but restraining the behavior of certain regimes and preserving certain values in the world, these are more salient goals.
|
On February 07 2017 02:02 LegalLord wrote:
So it seems that most of the world has basically decided that there's no benefit to friendship with Trump, that the electorate won't stand for it, and that countries are going to have to distance themselves from the US and hope the Trump presidency ends.
The exception is Russia, which is basically sitting by and just saying "lololol classic america" at all these happenings (since only a fraction of the government actually believes that better relations with the US are possible under Trump).
Interesting to see what will come of it.
Hopefully US administrations are viewed as mostly independent of each other.
|
On February 07 2017 02:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:56 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 01:04 zlefin wrote:On February 07 2017 01:00 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2017 00:51 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> your claim that Trump was a necessary seems inadequately founded. both in terms of it being a reset in any useful fashion, and of its being necessary. it seems more like the usual rhetoric rather than an accurate representation of reality; and at any rate, sending someone even further detached isn't going to be helpful either.
the notion that trump or trumpism has a better grasp of any of the issues you mention is definitely unfounded, and is false. I can understand being dissatisfied with the work of the politicians in addressing those issues, but trump will do an even worse job of it than they did. Could you provide an argument or opinion for your statement other then snide deflection? There really isn't anything in particular that advances the conversation or something to respond to in your post. well it is snide, I don't call it deflection. and which statement? I made several in there, you'd need to specify which ones you want more backing/justification for. Any of them? You start your post with saying that danglars is wrong and then don't day why you say this. You then ignore the whole thing and say it's more of the same rhetoric without even giving context for what rhetoric or who's rhetoric. You then state trump is wrong and false and never even elaborate on it to provide anything other then that statement. Then you state that you understand why people elected trump but don't think he'll sucseed. Again no reason why no context or anything Most of these are bearly connected to eachother and none of them have anything to really respond to or is a response to anyone else. I'd say there was a clear implicit point that trump's general lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues prevents him from being useful; also, the point in some of those cases was that the burden of proof was on danglars rather than myself. They're mostly a point by point response to things danglars said, which were probably not any more useful than my own statements (I didn't direct quote because it's very hard to cut out one section of a post, and he'd replied to 3 people, and I didn't want to be replying to the whole mess or it makes the post hard to read). if there's nothing ot respond to people can just not respond, or they can ask for clarification/extension. but mostly the arguments between us are so well-tread that there'es little new to be said. But none of that works when it's just a series of statements. You need to provide context and reference if it's a point by point reponse. You can't expect a clear implicit point when it's your opinion or position. You can't shift the burden of proof when your not making arguments or making points beacuse there isn't anything to prove or refute. I did ask for clarification. If there isn't anything new to say the burden is on the person making the post to make something new to say.
Seriously, zlefin, if you're not going to invest the effort in snipping a quote to show what you object to and show others it was argued and inadequately argued, you've provided no grounds for being taken seriously at all. You're actually a more pretentious cousin of simply saying "You described Trump as being a necessary evil and I'm offended." Your argumentation reduces to typing many sentences to confirm that "there's little new to be said." And if you have nothing to say except that you disagree, say nothing.
|
On February 07 2017 01:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 00:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:So apparently "people are saying" (to the New York Times) that Trump's mad he wasn't fully briefed on the EO that put Bannon on the NSC. I do have to wonder if "not being fully briefed" actually means "he didn't realize people would make mean cartoons and call him a Bannon puppet." It seems that with every passing day, there's yet another thing that Trump refuses to read or research. It makes the conspiracy theory that Trump can't read more and more attractive to me... that not only does he speak at a 4th grade level, but he reads at one too.
I actually hope this gains traction. Not because I believe he can't read. But because, after the shit he pulled with the birther stunt, it'd be too funny if he were forced to go on national TV and prove he can read.
|
On February 07 2017 02:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2017 01:43 xDaunt wrote:On February 07 2017 01:38 farvacola wrote:On February 07 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 07 2017 01:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2017 01:21 xDaunt wrote:On February 06 2017 15:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:On February 06 2017 14:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 06 2017 13:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Wait, so they're both criminals in jail, but one's a citizen? Is this even a question? I don't expect the right, legal decision to be the easy one to make, but the law's the law.
Neither is in jail, and I'm not asking about what the law is, I'm asking which do you/conservatives think is more desirable to have in the US. Listen, I won't always engage on rules established on top of hypotheticals because it simply isn't worth my time to find out all the 'what ifs' involved. I'd rather have a society established on the rule of law, so if you put before me a criminal alien and a criminal citizen, it's desirable to follow the goddamn law in both cases. Now you hint at an excon because it's hard to be dependent on welfare if the prison system is providing your welfare (different kind than usually referenced), and addictions are terribly hard to reliably service in prison. Simultaneously, undocumented in a sane society would be subject to deportation, so maybe we have two men/women on the run from the law or one in deportation proceedings and the other awaiting the judge. You might think it's worth carving some exception for illegal alien nice guy, but the long term effects of selectively enforcing laws is poison to the civil society. I certainly do not want to be governed by rule by man instead of rule by law; and any question of "desirable" does bring into question first principles of why we'd want impartially enforce laws in the first place. Don't give a conservative the bullshit about "what the law is." No matter if I agree with the law or not, desirability refers back to the laws on the books rather than the laws I advocate for that might exist in the future, unless you want to talk slavery or Plessy v. Ferguson situations. The only way it's Yango's "That's not really answering the question GH is asking at all" is if we change the hypothetical or put me in the place of commuting this man's sentence/legislating amnesty singlehandedly for the crime as absolute monarch. I see only the long term view of society in this case. On February 06 2017 12:12 IgnE wrote:
like how can we take seriously a man who talks about a "nation of laws" and "securing the border" when he doesn't even do his part to secure his community? you waiting for someone else to do the dirty work? One of the fun parts of sanctuary cities is these things become catch and release. I wager you're interested in the rhetorical point, not all the shameful laws as being practiced, so I'll only add you should come down here and conduct an experiment to secure the community just to learn it's efficacy in practice. Also, try your free speech rights in Berkeley next with some unpopular opinions while you're at it. The protesters might have run out of mace and Molotovs. Or maybe just recall how much rule of law mattered when Trump advocated massive illegal deportations during the campaign. Nothing short of that will matter, it smacks of the same discretion exercised by the feds when they choose not to arrest for drug offenses in states crafting rules regulating drug use ... not laws, just extra-legal discretion. Since you're focusing on the criminal aspect perhaps me asking the question differently will better answer what I'm wondering. Basically, is being in the country illegally (but otherwise being a model citizen) more detrimental to the country, than being a jobless, (legally) drugged up, welfare dependent, white family with right of blood* citizenship, from the conservative perspective? The hypothetical that you're posing isn't particularly useful for crafting immigration policy. First, the problem of the deadbeat native family is completely irrelevant to immigration policy. How to handle him and his ilk is more of a local (state or community). And unlike immigration, it's an unavoidable problem given the vested rights and privileges of citizens. As for the illegal immigrant family, their case isn't particularly instructive for immigration policy because it's a case at the margin. Marginal cases provide no value to policymakers when crafting sane immigration policies that ensure proper cultural assimilation of immigrants. Policymakers have to be more macro-oriented because proper immigration policy necessarily entails the management of entire populations. So while we can have an emotionally charged discussion about the relative values of the hypothetical good illegal immigrant family and the bad native family, it's not really going to get us anywhere useful. Except, from all I've heard, that hypothetical has shaped your (unofficial) immigration policy for decades. Illegal immigrants seem to be quite vital to a large portion of your agricultural and industrial manufacturing fields. Right, which is why I vehemently object to our current, corrupt immigration policy. What makes you think that the economic circumstances surrounding business decisions to seek out and hire illegal immigrants are going to be bettered by attempting to solve the problem from an immigration standpoint? Suddenly removing a large chunk of available labor without providing for some kind of replacement is a recipe for economic hardship, and in many of the rural areas that scrape by on industrial farm taxation, for example, things are likely going to get quite a bit more dire. The businesses hiring illegal immigrants can and should be dealt with separately. Illegal immigration is a completely unacceptable solution to their problems. Frankly, I'm less concerned about the businesses themselves and more about the mostly rural communities that have come to rely on them for subsistence. Trump staked a lot of his claim on improving their fortunes and without concessions elsewhere, this singular in focus immigration tactic seems primed to do the opposite.
Sure, those communities can be dealt with separately, too (and my use of "dealt with" doesn't necessarily entail punishment). My only point is that using illegal immigration as a crutch for other policy deficiencies is clearly not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
