|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11593 Posts
On January 01 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 03:31 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the wall is a physical structure proxy for the metaphorical concept of removing all ways to immigrate to this country. Just like how the US as always been at war with eastasia…I mean Afghanistan. Trump and his immigration hardliners have always been and always will be building the wall against immigration. Unless demonstrated otherwise, I'm willing to believe that most pro-wall people are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant, rather than assuming they harbour animus against all immigrants. I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless demonstrated otherwise is a pretty big caveat here. I feel like there is quite a lot of evidence that wall people are anti immigrant. They overlap heavily with immigration ban people, for example. So while I don’t disagree with the idea that in a vacuum we wouldn’t know enough to extrapolate, we’re not in a vacuum here.
Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch.
What sort of evidence would you like? There hasn’t been any immigration reform in 30 years, despite a number of attempts. Illegal immigration is down, so the support these aggressive stances against asylum seekers has to make one wonder why some folks are so invested in treating these folks so poorly for no real reason.
The Jeff Sessions, Steve Millers and Mark Meadows of the world are on record saying they support legal immigration and would like to update the immigration system to be more merit based. And that merit based system would allow for more control to assure that the best people are allowed to come to the US. If we take them at face value and believe that system will be objective and perfectly fair, then there is no reason to doubt that they support immigration of the highest quality people. And that is the reason that Jeff Sessions and Steve Miller blew up the last immigration reform effort, because they didn't like how the system currently works.
How is this evidence? Thirty years of trying and failing still means people want reform. If illegal immigration is down despite little change in the US, that means the push factors have diminished... for the time being. That means nothing has been changed in the long term and as soon as the push factors change again, you are right back to where you started. So now would be a great time to curb illegal immigration further.
I don't see how a merit-based system is a problem. We have something similar in Canada. Being for merit-based immigration doesn't make one anti-immigration.
If you look at the actions of the Trump administration, the deportations of illegal immigrants is only a small part of their efforts. They have revoked the asylum status large groups of disaster refuges from various South American and island nations. They have started investigation into American citizens who immigrated from South America that the administration believes lied on their citizenship application. They have started deportation proceedings against green card holders due to minor crimes that were resolved, sometimes decades ago.
This I don't know as much about and have to look at particulars. Devil's in the details as it were.
|
On January 01 2019 04:42 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 03:31 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the wall is a physical structure proxy for the metaphorical concept of removing all ways to immigrate to this country. Just like how the US as always been at war with eastasia…I mean Afghanistan. Trump and his immigration hardliners have always been and always will be building the wall against immigration. Unless demonstrated otherwise, I'm willing to believe that most pro-wall people are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant, rather than assuming they harbour animus against all immigrants. I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless demonstrated otherwise is a pretty big caveat here. I feel like there is quite a lot of evidence that wall people are anti immigrant. They overlap heavily with immigration ban people, for example. So while I don’t disagree with the idea that in a vacuum we wouldn’t know enough to extrapolate, we’re not in a vacuum here. Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch.
they are so pro immigration that all their ideas would limit immigration....
|
Canada11593 Posts
On January 01 2019 04:51 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 04:42 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 03:31 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the wall is a physical structure proxy for the metaphorical concept of removing all ways to immigrate to this country. Just like how the US as always been at war with eastasia…I mean Afghanistan. Trump and his immigration hardliners have always been and always will be building the wall against immigration. Unless demonstrated otherwise, I'm willing to believe that most pro-wall people are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant, rather than assuming they harbour animus against all immigrants. I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless demonstrated otherwise is a pretty big caveat here. I feel like there is quite a lot of evidence that wall people are anti immigrant. They overlap heavily with immigration ban people, for example. So while I don’t disagree with the idea that in a vacuum we wouldn’t know enough to extrapolate, we’re not in a vacuum here. Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch. they are so pro immigration that all their ideas would limit immigration....
Are you for unlimited immigration? If not, then in some form, you too are for limited immigration. It's just a matter of how much. And that's a legitimate debate to have- how many immigrants does a country need at this or that time. Maybe more at some points and maybe less now. And however efficacious a wall would be against illegal immigration, it would have no absolutely no bearing on legal immigration. Unless you are referring to merit-based immigration, but that too is not a limit on immigration in terms of numbers.
|
Your point being as long as you want to let in atleast 1 immigrant you can reasonably be classified as pro-immigration?
|
Canada11593 Posts
On January 01 2019 05:30 ThaddeusK wrote:
Your point being as long as you want to let in atleast 1 immigrant you can reasonably be classified as pro-immigration?
No. That is a really silly thing to conclude from what I wrote.
|
On January 01 2019 04:42 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 03:31 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the wall is a physical structure proxy for the metaphorical concept of removing all ways to immigrate to this country. Just like how the US as always been at war with eastasia…I mean Afghanistan. Trump and his immigration hardliners have always been and always will be building the wall against immigration. Unless demonstrated otherwise, I'm willing to believe that most pro-wall people are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant, rather than assuming they harbour animus against all immigrants. I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless demonstrated otherwise is a pretty big caveat here. I feel like there is quite a lot of evidence that wall people are anti immigrant. They overlap heavily with immigration ban people, for example. So while I don’t disagree with the idea that in a vacuum we wouldn’t know enough to extrapolate, we’re not in a vacuum here. Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch. Show nested quote +
What sort of evidence would you like? There hasn’t been any immigration reform in 30 years, despite a number of attempts. Illegal immigration is down, so the support these aggressive stances against asylum seekers has to make one wonder why some folks are so invested in treating these folks so poorly for no real reason.
The Jeff Sessions, Steve Millers and Mark Meadows of the world are on record saying they support legal immigration and would like to update the immigration system to be more merit based. And that merit based system would allow for more control to assure that the best people are allowed to come to the US. If we take them at face value and believe that system will be objective and perfectly fair, then there is no reason to doubt that they support immigration of the highest quality people. And that is the reason that Jeff Sessions and Steve Miller blew up the last immigration reform effort, because they didn't like how the system currently works.
How is this evidence? Thirty years of trying and failing still means people want reform. If illegal immigration is down despite little change in the US, that means the push factors have diminished... for the time being. That means nothing has been changed in the long term and as soon as the push factors change again, you are right back to where you started. So now would be a great time to curb illegal immigration further. I don't see how a merit-based system is a problem. We have something similar in Canada. Being for merit-based immigration doesn't make one anti-immigration. Show nested quote +If you look at the actions of the Trump administration, the deportations of illegal immigrants is only a small part of their efforts. They have revoked the asylum status large groups of disaster refuges from various South American and island nations. They have started investigation into American citizens who immigrated from South America that the administration believes lied on their citizenship application. They have started deportation proceedings against green card holders due to minor crimes that were resolved, sometimes decades ago. This I don't know as much about and have to look at particulars. Devil's in the details as it were.
But you are right that the devil is in the details. I felt I was pretty clearly explained that the people proposing the merit based system are immigration hardliners that have derailed immigration reform in the US. Jeff Sessions was a senator who worked to derail other groups of senators working on immigration reform and was previously denied a judgeship in the 1980s due to racial tinged comments he made back then. Miller worked for him in the senate and has been trying to kill all immigration reform that entire time.
The reality in the US is that the immigration hardliners say they support legal immigration and reform, but want to put in place systems that would allow even more people to be denied legal status. And it wasn’t like the US was well known for being easy to immigrate to before now. And when they call it a merit based system, it implies that our current system isn’t based on merit. The entire narrative is based on a false premise that we let anyone into the country, which is the narrative they are trying to push.
This is why I asked what sort of evidence you wanted, because I needed to know what you would accept as evidence. It has always been hard to point to a single thing that proves the Jeff Sessions is a hard line racist. But he did oversee building a camp that put imprisoned migrant children on display at the border.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border
Tent camps. A temporary facility has been set up in Tornillo, Texas, near El Paso. Little is known about the facility, and reporters have not been allowed inside, but KQED's John Sepulvado has seen the tent camp from outside.
"It's a heavy-duty-grade white tent in the middle of a desert," he told NPR's Here & Now. "It's behind two chain-link fences and there's a dirt easement that's on top of it, so you can't actually see into it from the American side."
But here is the thing, the people crossing the border are seeking asylum in the US. Crossing the border is a minor crime and the asylum seekers have a great track record of attending the immigration hearings. The asylum process is also merit based.
So why are we putting these people in camps if they legal immigrants coming to the US to seek asylum? Why are we preventing what is effectively a step in legal immigration?
On January 01 2019 05:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 04:51 IyMoon wrote:On January 01 2019 04:42 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 03:31 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the wall is a physical structure proxy for the metaphorical concept of removing all ways to immigrate to this country. Just like how the US as always been at war with eastasia…I mean Afghanistan. Trump and his immigration hardliners have always been and always will be building the wall against immigration. Unless demonstrated otherwise, I'm willing to believe that most pro-wall people are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant, rather than assuming they harbour animus against all immigrants. I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless demonstrated otherwise is a pretty big caveat here. I feel like there is quite a lot of evidence that wall people are anti immigrant. They overlap heavily with immigration ban people, for example. So while I don’t disagree with the idea that in a vacuum we wouldn’t know enough to extrapolate, we’re not in a vacuum here. Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch. they are so pro immigration that all their ideas would limit immigration.... Are you for unlimited immigration? If not, then in some form, you too are for limited immigration. It's just a matter of how much. And that's a legitimate debate to have- how many immigrants does a country need at this or that time. Maybe more at some points and maybe less now. And however efficacious a wall would be against illegal immigration, it would have no absolutely no bearing on legal immigration. Unless you are referring to merit-based immigration, but that too is not a limit on immigration in terms of numbers.
America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it.
Do you know if the current US system is merit based? And who gets to decide what is meritorious?
|
Canada11593 Posts
America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it.
Just briefly because one of my points you have misunderstood.
I was not actually accusing anyone one have wanting open borders. I was rhetorically establishing that limiting immigration does not equal anti-immigration because short of open borders everything else is a limit to immigration, by definition. It was intended as making a base line point of agreement (or else flushing out if there were any open border advocates). Once that is established, then we can argue that what we are talking about is a matter of degrees, not necessarily a matter of pro- or anti- immigration. I hope that clears up what I was doing. The rest I'll have to respond to later.
|
Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch.
Might wanna read "48 laws of power".
Specifically Law 12. Explains a lot about people like Shapiro or other right wing pinup girls. It's also a pretty bad faith argument to say "well all wall supporters are pro-immigration until proven otherwise" - that's not on anyone but you to prove. The reasonable assumption is that if you want to lock out immigrants, you're not pro-immigrants (and btw, blatantly racist outbursts can be seen all over youtube, so absolute statements are wrong by default anyway). That's it. It's on you to prove that the reasonable assumption is wrong.
|
On January 01 2019 05:49 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it. Just briefly because one of my points you have misunderstood. I was not actually accusing anyone one have wanting open borders. I was rhetorically establishing that limiting immigration does not equal anti-immigration because short of open borders everything else is a limit to immigration, by definition. It was intended as making a base line point of agreement (or else flushing out if there were any open border advocates). Once that is established, then we can argue that what we are talking about is a matter of degrees, not necessarily a matter of pro- or anti- immigration. I hope that clears up what I was doing. The rest I'll have to respond to later.
You are having a hard time in this discussion because the people on the left you are talking to have no coherent view of immigration themselves. They aren't open borders, but they are anti-enforcement at most levels. Wall? No. Changing asylum laws? No. E-Verify? No. Move to a points based system? No. They don't want to make it physically more difficult and they don't want to remove the incentives either.Asylum claims have skyrocketed in the past few years, which helps the apprehension stats, because word has got round that if you make it across and claim asylum you are probably going to be released. The incentives are perverse.
This is something the Democrats will have deal with in 2020 too; Trump may not get his wall but his stance is much easier to understand than the mush being offered up opposite of him. ("No illegal immigration, those seeking asylum should stay in Mexico or in US custody until their cases can be evaluated."). Recall that when we were having the family separation fiasco most people, including most Democrats, supported keeping the whole family in custody rather than releasing them into the county (according to one poll). We pretend that the populace as a whole is closer to the left-wing activist position than they really are. But remember, these same people denounced Trump's ridiculously generous DACA deal as racist. They are not acting in good faith.
|
Canada11593 Posts
On January 01 2019 08:50 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch.
Might wanna read "48 laws of power". Specifically Law 12. Explains a lot about people like Shapiro or other right wing pinup girls. It's also a pretty bad faith argument to say "well all wall supporters are pro-immigration until proven otherwise" - that's not on anyone but you to prove. The reasonable assumption is that if you want to lock out immigrants, you're not pro-immigrants (and btw, blatantly racist outbursts can be seen all over youtube, so absolute statements are wrong by default anyway). That's it. It's on you to prove that the reasonable assumption is wrong.
Why is it bad faith to assume they mean what they say? Shapiro and co explicitly say are pro-immigrant (his parents are immigrants) but is anti-illegal immigrant. Why is it upon me to prove this? He doesn't seem to want to lock out immigrants. He wants to lock out illegal immigrants. I think it's a reasonable assumption to believe him and people like him. Why is it up to me to disprove that he's a racist?
|
|
|
On January 01 2019 09:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 09:23 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 05:49 Falling wrote:America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it. Just briefly because one of my points you have misunderstood. I was not actually accusing anyone one have wanting open borders. I was rhetorically establishing that limiting immigration does not equal anti-immigration because short of open borders everything else is a limit to immigration, by definition. It was intended as making a base line point of agreement (or else flushing out if there were any open border advocates). Once that is established, then we can argue that what we are talking about is a matter of degrees, not necessarily a matter of pro- or anti- immigration. I hope that clears up what I was doing. The rest I'll have to respond to later. You are having a hard time in this discussion because the people on the left you are talking to have no coherent view of immigration themselves. They aren't open borders, but they are anti-enforcement at most levels. Wall? No. Changing asylum laws? No. E-Verify? No. Move to a points based system? No. They don't want to make it physically more difficult and they don't want to remove the incentives either.Asylum claims have skyrocketed in the past few years, which helps the apprehension stats, because word has got round that if you make it across and claim asylum you are probably going to be released. The incentives are perverse. This is something the Democrats will have deal with in 2020 too; Trump may not get his wall but his stance is much easier to understand than the mush being offered up opposite of him. ("No illegal immigration, those seeking asylum should stay in Mexico or in US custody until their cases can be evaluated."). Recall that when we were having the family separation fiasco most people, including most Democrats, supported keeping the whole family in custody rather than releasing them into the county (according to one poll). We pretend that the populace as a whole is closer to the left-wing activist position than they really are. But remember, these same people denounced Trump's ridiculously generous DACA deal as racist. They are not acting in good faith. I don't think anyone thinks illegal immigration is a problem. I'm not sure that anyone with critical their critical thinking hat on thinks that the wall will solve or even slow down the problem. Rather that it is a HUGE waste of money and time even talking about it. And it is hard to have a reasonable conversation when someone acts as if the wall is a good idea. As for your comments about everyone on the "left" I think you need to be more specific because it is a wide net if you are calling everyone left of Trump the left. It makes like 30-40% of Republicans on the left. And like 90% of the rest of world.
Is your first sentence missing a word? There are most certainly people who think it's not a problem. Also, 25 billion (or 5 like Trump wants now) is a pittance. You kind of flew over my main point. What are the one or two mainstream Democrat positions today on immigration? I can tell you what the 2 or 3 mainstream Republican ones are.
****
Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have?
|
United States24792 Posts
On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:
Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have?
This is not very friendly but is very insensitive. Government shutdowns cause hardship to many people.
|
On January 01 2019 10:18 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:
Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have?
This is not very friendly but is very insensitive. Government shutdowns cause hardship to many people.
I meant as a broader political issue. That being said, government shutdowns have been happening on and off for over 30 years, by now if you go into the federal workforce you should be aware that it is something you will deal with multiple times throughout your career. Most of them are short and don't hurt that much anyways.
|
|
|
On January 01 2019 10:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 09:32 JimmiC wrote:On January 01 2019 09:23 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 05:49 Falling wrote:America doesn't allow for unlimited immigration or open borders. If you want to talk about having a legitimate debate about immigration, don't imply that anyone wants unlimited immigration. Because no one is advocating for that and frankly many people are really tired of hearing it. Just briefly because one of my points you have misunderstood. I was not actually accusing anyone one have wanting open borders. I was rhetorically establishing that limiting immigration does not equal anti-immigration because short of open borders everything else is a limit to immigration, by definition. It was intended as making a base line point of agreement (or else flushing out if there were any open border advocates). Once that is established, then we can argue that what we are talking about is a matter of degrees, not necessarily a matter of pro- or anti- immigration. I hope that clears up what I was doing. The rest I'll have to respond to later. You are having a hard time in this discussion because the people on the left you are talking to have no coherent view of immigration themselves. They aren't open borders, but they are anti-enforcement at most levels. Wall? No. Changing asylum laws? No. E-Verify? No. Move to a points based system? No. They don't want to make it physically more difficult and they don't want to remove the incentives either.Asylum claims have skyrocketed in the past few years, which helps the apprehension stats, because word has got round that if you make it across and claim asylum you are probably going to be released. The incentives are perverse. This is something the Democrats will have deal with in 2020 too; Trump may not get his wall but his stance is much easier to understand than the mush being offered up opposite of him. ("No illegal immigration, those seeking asylum should stay in Mexico or in US custody until their cases can be evaluated."). Recall that when we were having the family separation fiasco most people, including most Democrats, supported keeping the whole family in custody rather than releasing them into the county (according to one poll). We pretend that the populace as a whole is closer to the left-wing activist position than they really are. But remember, these same people denounced Trump's ridiculously generous DACA deal as racist. They are not acting in good faith. I don't think anyone thinks illegal immigration is a problem. I'm not sure that anyone with critical their critical thinking hat on thinks that the wall will solve or even slow down the problem. Rather that it is a HUGE waste of money and time even talking about it. And it is hard to have a reasonable conversation when someone acts as if the wall is a good idea. As for your comments about everyone on the "left" I think you need to be more specific because it is a wide net if you are calling everyone left of Trump the left. It makes like 30-40% of Republicans on the left. And like 90% of the rest of world. Is your first sentence missing a word? There are most certainly people who think it's not a problem. Also, 25 billion (or 5 like Trump wants now) is a pittance. You kind of flew over my main point. What are the one or two mainstream Democrat positions today on immigration? I can tell you what the 2 or 3 mainstream Republican ones are. **** Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have? A word or contraction yes. Isn't was what I meant. I don't know, I'm not a democrat. That was my point lumping in everyone that thinks the wall is stupid as a democrat on a international thread is silly. Also, I think the republicans have a marketing problem because most of the world, and much of the USA thinks that the wall is what they want, that they think it will solve the problems. That the 5 billion is just the start and that they care so much about it that they are willing to affect a huge amount of Americans lives over it via the shutdown. Edit: it is also somewhat funny that we have more poster asking for someone to take what a person says at face value. And then we are not supposed to take Trump at face value when he talks about the wall. Not the way it works.
I did no such thing. And I listed out other options that are also rejected.
I'm afraid something is being lost in your reading or in my writing. I did not lump everyone who opposes a wall into the same group. My point is that the American left has no coherent, explainable position on illegal immigration, or even immigration more generally. They will pound away on people like Falling who, I assume, is playing Devil's Advocate, but strangely never feel the need to outline what they would do. This is made easier by saying "well we don't have an illegal immigration problem in the first place."
|
5930 Posts
A huge problem regarding illegal migration is that its directly tied to an economy still dependent on the Bracero program. Until that problem is resolved, illegal immigration (that isn't asylum related) is still going to continue to be a problem because you've got people like the President of the United States himself who want to exploit underpaid contract labour in his private businesses.
The history of a lot of immigration stings of the United States are kind of amusing because of the Bracero program and the American dependence on it. Operation Wetback did manage to deport a lot of undocumented immigrants but the same undocumented immigrants ended up going straight back into the USA under the Bracero program, which sort of defeated its purpose of deporting undocumented immigrants and helping Mexico regain a labor base to industrialize.
Same thing with Operation Gatekeeper. Clinton militarizes the hell out of the US-Mexico border but that just pushes people to cross the border from the east and/or encourages them to pay people smugglers (Coyotes). And instead of the temporary migration (Go to US for seasonal work -> Send money back -> Go back to Mexico) created by the Bracero program, undocumented migrants just stayed in the USA with their entire families. Which unintentionally created the whole DREAMer situation.
Really, a lot of immigration problems the USA is dealing with right now are completely self-inflicted. If we ignore the problems related to underpaid contract labour, I have to imagine temporary migration is a preferable solution to the bullshit happening right now. Like the whole the asylum situation is basically because of the War on Drugs and the still restrictive USA immigration policies stopping people from successfully fleeing from Latin America via legal means.
Edit: Also, the 1960s immigration reforms did actually propose a merit based system. It was actually shot down by the Dixiecrats. Congress ended up with "Family Reunification" as a compromise as they saw it as helping to keep America white and protestant for longer, which was the entire basis of America's previous nation of origin immigration system. There's a certain humour in this situation because the same people are now moaning about "Chain Migration".
|
On January 01 2019 05:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 04:51 IyMoon wrote:On January 01 2019 04:42 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 03:53 KwarK wrote:On January 01 2019 03:31 Falling wrote:On January 01 2019 00:27 Plansix wrote:
I feel like the wall is a physical structure proxy for the metaphorical concept of removing all ways to immigrate to this country. Just like how the US as always been at war with eastasia…I mean Afghanistan. Trump and his immigration hardliners have always been and always will be building the wall against immigration. Unless demonstrated otherwise, I'm willing to believe that most pro-wall people are pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal immigrant, rather than assuming they harbour animus against all immigrants. I don't think that's unreasonable. Unless demonstrated otherwise is a pretty big caveat here. I feel like there is quite a lot of evidence that wall people are anti immigrant. They overlap heavily with immigration ban people, for example. So while I don’t disagree with the idea that in a vacuum we wouldn’t know enough to extrapolate, we’re not in a vacuum here. Well, for instance, I think the Shapiro's of the world and that branch of conservationism is both pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. He's been very consistent and I don't see any reason to not believe him and that branch. they are so pro immigration that all their ideas would limit immigration.... Are you for unlimited immigration? If not, then in some form, you too are for limited immigration. It's just a matter of how much. And that's a legitimate debate to have- how many immigrants does a country need at this or that time. Maybe more at some points and maybe less now. And however efficacious a wall would be against illegal immigration, it would have no absolutely no bearing on legal immigration. Unless you are referring to merit-based immigration, but that too is not a limit on immigration in terms of numbers.
The Shapiro's of the world never actually own up to that position and argue for less immigration. All they do is attack strawmen about open borders. Don't confuse their attacks on open borders for any kind of honest argument about how much immigration the country should actually have. If you actually want that kind of "how much immigrants can we handle" stuff, go to David Frum. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/need-for-immigration-control/563261/ . Shapiro never makes this argument. The entire time is picking on strawmen to own the libs. This is why Libs don't take any arguments that he is actually pro-legal immigration seriously. If he was, there would be some kind of honest discussion about what his ideal immigration reform would look like.
|
On January 01 2019 10:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 10:18 micronesia wrote:On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:
Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have?
This is not very friendly but is very insensitive. Government shutdowns cause hardship to many people. I meant as a broader political issue. That being said, government shutdowns have been happening on and off for over 30 years, by now if you go into the federal workforce you should be aware that it is something you will deal with multiple times throughout your career. Most of them are short and don't hurt that much anyways.
There is nothing like holding federal workers pay checks hostage to impunity try to force congress to fund unpopular projects.
And I’m sure the banks holding the mortgages of the federal workers are going to care a lot. And the voters in care too. After all, they just kicked the conservatives right out of the House in no small part to their poor governance.
|
On January 01 2019 14:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2019 10:22 Introvert wrote:On January 01 2019 10:18 micronesia wrote:On January 01 2019 09:57 Introvert wrote:
Also, a friendly reminder that no one cares about shutdowns. When it's over we'll forget it happened. Well most people will, the base of either party won't, but all the leaders have to do is convince their bases that they fought as hard as they could. How many shutdowns without consequences do we need to have?
This is not very friendly but is very insensitive. Government shutdowns cause hardship to many people. I meant as a broader political issue. That being said, government shutdowns have been happening on and off for over 30 years, by now if you go into the federal workforce you should be aware that it is something you will deal with multiple times throughout your career. Most of them are short and don't hurt that much anyways. There is nothing like holding federal workers pay checks hostage to impunity try to force congress to fund unpopular projects. And I’m sure the banks holding the mortgages of the federal workers are going to care a lot. And the voters in care too. After all, they just kicked the conservatives right out of the House in no small part to their poor governance.
I'm also just as sure that federal workers appreciate the take that they should just expect whoever's in charge to play with their livelihood like a football, punting it back and forth like they're toys in a game. Like a shutdown isn't an entirely preventable event that's now being used maliciously because the guys in charge couldn't politick successfully. This will all go down like Irish cream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
