I chuckled this morning at FoxNews homepage. Main story was on how the Kavanaugh accusers are no longer front and center in the news. Uhhh yea, I’m sure they’d like to move on with their lives then rehash a sexual assault experience over and over again when nothing will come of it moving forward.

The other main story was basically AOC is the boogeyman.

I mean I'd vote for her over Bernie, but yeah. Of course it's too early to see who will run, but usually Governors tend to be better options than Senators when it comes to these things.

It changes everything, inasmuch as the illegality was literally the point.

So why not make everyone legal and call it a day?

I assume your liberal philosophy also will allow 300/390/820K (pick a number) to become legal and stay?

Unauthorized Immigrants with Criminal Convictions: Who Might Be a Priority for Removal? | migrationpolicy.org

I guess I just don't get it.

We have people coming in that are a net gain on our economy and, on average, commit crimes at a lower rate than our own citizens.

We're barely at replacement level for population growth and trending down.

Why in the hell would immigration reform be more important than Healthcare, Infrastructure, or Education?

Thanks, I was pretty sure I understood the context and appreciate the confirmation.

If the only problem is the illegality it would be a hell of a lot easier, quicker and cheaper to just say it's legal and move on.

I don't think the opposition is solely about legal status.

I agree we are not making enough babies. It's really a relatively simple solution IMO.

Open up the floodgates for the highly educated (brown, yellow, black, white, mixed etc.) with some sort of agreed to definition/quota to immigrate and "they will come" ... assuming we take care of security concerns (and again, I personally would disallow dual citizenships).

I'm not sure I would toss in the wealthy (and they already have some sort of special investment visa going and many would fall under the highly educated also) but you get the idea. Replacement population problem gone.

No doubt you are right. I admit there is probably some racism (e.g. preference for Europeans) but illegality is a big part of it.

I was just wondering how far you would go with your open ended statement.

What's stopping them from coming now?

Smaller than preferred quotas

EDIT: and from my experience - long, painful, bureaucratic process

Seems like the right strategy to me. I predict the GOP will blink first but there'll be some sort of face-saving excuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/polit...own/index.html

I'm really not sure bringing the best of the best will sway the anti-immigration crowd; if anything, it would just make them more resentful when they're leapfrogged in achievement/status.

In fairness, I'm not sure that particular contingent of Trump's base is going to lose many promotions or jobs to Doctors and Scientists.

And dare I say that a good chunk of the people we need would not necessarily be highly educated?

True. The quota system will need to be re-calibrated somehow, increased guest worker programs etc.

Well no, but that's part of it. Envy that these outsiders get to be doctors and scientists (with nice houses and cars) while they don't.


Also true, of course.

This probably isn't the best place for it, but looking towards 2020 I'm trying to think more about which parts of Trump winning was uniquely American, and what is a product of the changing media climate. Brasil is adding another point in favor of the latter - Jair Bolsonaro, A Polarizing Figure, Prepares To Become Brazil's President : NPR .

My main takeaway is watch out for Sergio Moro - he'll either be president, dictator, or in jail within a decade - but it's also more confirmation that charisma matters more than ever. Cough cough Liz Warren cough.

Assume this is not just for Mexican companies but also to attract US companies into the 15 mile buffer.

I really have no idea if its workable but it is interesting.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/mexica...igration-to-us

I don't think Trump winning was uniquely American. Another example prior to Trump is Duterte in the Philippines.

No one respects our military like Trump...except when he doesn't.

“General” McChrystal got fired like a dog by Obama. Last assignment a total bust. Known for big, dumb mouth. Hillary lover! https://t.co/RzOkeHl3KV

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 1, 2019

I didn't know you could fire canines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.495cf887e8dd

This interview with Falwell Jr. sure is something. The political evangelical movement is all about power and morally bankrupt.

dola

Here's a great thread on the uselessness and danger of a wall.

https://twitter.com/Stonekettle/stat...24542589284353

Glad to see he is more of an expert than the guys/gals on the ground.

Wonder if he ever visited the border or spoken to the border patrol to get their opinion.

Because it's a fundamentally horrid idea to reward people for entering the country illegally, not to mention how unfair it is to those who came through the proper process.


It's that whole pesky rule of law thing. Their economic impact on the nation doesn't even register as a consideration by comparison. The very fact that we aren't even trying to enforce the laws we have is a net negative that overwhelms any other such impacts.

Senior citizens are breaking the rule of law by going to Canada, buying cheaper prescription medicine, and bringing it back across the border. How should we handle this situation - building a N wall? Maybe start arresting these law breaking old people?

Edit: We should definitely arrest this guy, right?

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/...-20180727.html

** To repeat: I'm against the wall on the Mexico border. How many times do I have to say this? Let me just get it out of the way as many times as is necessary. Disagreeing with amnesty != being for the wall, being a Trump supporter, etc.

** The question of whether people who are breaking the law should be given the punishment afforded by the statute isn't even one that should need to be asked. The answer is yes, and is independent of whether it might be a better idea to change the law going forward. The alternative of a progressively deeper slide towards anarchy is totally unacceptable.

I'm calling bullshit on it being a rule of law thing.

We have countless laws that are ignored or minimally enforced throughout the country. Why is this one more important than others?

Where's the outrage over speeding? Drunk driving? Cooperate tax fraud? Money laundering? Package theft?

White-collar crime especially gets me. The scale of how folks can get swindled is so much larger than any made-up drain on the system from immigration.

Miami's Phillip Frost Pays $100,000 SEC Stock-Fraud Settlement | Miami New Times

Saw that the other day, I recognized the name from conversations with the in-laws. Billionaire, still so hard-up for money that he needs to participate in a pump-and-dump scheme. Jail time? Nope, just pay a fine, one that's trivial for a billionaire.

Scam people Wells Fargo style? Pay a fine, carry on. Ad infinitum.

Just look at all the shit Trump would have gotten away with if he hadn't decided to run for office.

This is, without question, one of the biggest issues our society faces. Guy on the street gets choked out and killed over a black market cigarette and the message is, he should've listened to the cops. Billionaire steals a crap-ton of money via fraud, jacks the system for lawful people, pays a fine, and trump would say that he was treated very unfairly.

It's not fair, and the lack of fair treatment is what's causing a great amount of discontent today.

This reminds me of Javert in Les Miserables - it is right because it's the law. Although Javert at least seemed to be consistent, but people seem to be minimize many violations of the law that cause far more harm than undocumented people, such as the aforementioned white collar crimes and DUIs. Or heck, marijuana use.

And the fear of a 'deeper slide toward anarchy' is so hysterically ludicrous as to be laughable.

How about we be realistic about costs and benefits of laws including their enforcement? We seem to be getting there on the drug war. How about immigration? I have little patience for this law uber alles mentality that some have for a handful of laws (esp when some who are so big on the law for some things are far more lenient on those violating other laws - the opiod crisis comes to mind)

Brian: Would you be okay with punishment for all those that came illegally and then free movement from then on? If it's only about the law, I'd assume you're neutral about any changes.

You seem to be continuing to labor under a misconception that I'm somehow speaking for anti-immigration sentiment as a whole, the right, Trumpism, or some other segment of the population. I'm not. Within those groups, there's certain a racial element to some of it, and there's also the whole idea of a potential voting bloc being added and shifting demographics. It's not hard to figure, based on that, why Democrats would be pro-amnesty and Republicans against it, absent any other factors.

As for me, I totally agree that ignoring white collar-crime in some respects is a big, big problem. That's a small part of why I advocated for much stronger enforcement on employers as the way to deal with the immigration problem. It's as if people are simply bound and determined to shadow-box apocryphal things I never said.

I do think immigration enforcement is different, because when you are talking about people who don't have a legal right to be here, that's a fundamentally more basic issue than the crimes that citizens are committing. But both absolutely matter, and the ignoring of other types of crime is part and parcel of what I'm talking about when I lament the declining rule of law. All of it matters, and to the level it continues to be tolerated to a greater and greater degree, the level of civilization in this country will continue to erode.

I wouldn't go quite that far, because I think totally open borders are a mistake until and unless we get to a one-world government which I think is an inevitably eventually, despite the dangers involved. I am for dramatically increasing legal immigration, any streamlining that can be done, removal of quotas entirely, and basically allowing anyone in who wants to come that we don't have a good reason to exclude. So I'm in the 'mostly open' camp.


I'd call it 'patently self-evident' personally, for reasons that include those you yourself have mentioned.

So are the only two reasons to oppose open borders are racism and hollow adherence to the concept of law?

Which of those two reasons are why I can't just pickup and live permanently in Denmark absent finding an employer willing to through a ton of red tape (which in most cases would require me to learn Danish).

Being realistic about what the law's purpose actually is? The law doesn't exist by itself, but is a series of rules created because we as a society wanted some rules that we felt may benefit us. Sometimes we were very very wrong and those rules don't benefit us. We sometimes take them away, but there are those who believe the law is an idol or it's to onerous to remove all of the silly rules and societies around the world have determined that we don't need to formally remove the rules to not enforce them when they make no sense (think of all the silly law lists). People can be realistic about laws without being anarchy. In fact the US is anything but - plenty of people believe it is too regulated after all.

And sometimes people think parts of written law should be un or under enforced while keeping the rest.

All of which means that simply violating a law isn't actually an argument for a policy. Especially not when people are arguing costs and benefit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I was trying to get to the fundamental argument. If the argument is about the sanctity of the law, changing the law shouldn't cause an objection. Brian's interesting because he really isn't looking to reduce immigration. I think Brian is sincere in his beliefs about the law, even though I am much closer to Siddiqi's position.

But for most people that favor immigration restrictions, either for illegal or legal, I don't think the fundamental issue is the sanctity of the law. For a lot of those people, I do think racism, or culturalism if you prefer, is the driving motivation. The easy and often correct label is while nationalism. That's not the only reason to favor greater limitations, but it is what's driving the White House.

I do favor restrictions for legal and definitely illegal/undocumented immigration.

The sanctity of the law is an important portion but not the only. I do consider myself a nationalist and I do want the US to continue being the preeminent power in the world. However, nationalist is sometimes/how associated with racism and I do not consider myself a racist.

So for those that advocate open borders, spell out your position because open borders is a nebulous to me. Excluding felons (I assume), some big questions off the top of my head ...

-- Literal open borders with total free movement anytime, anywhere, any length of time?
-- Ability to work at will?
-- How will SS/Medicare/Medicaid etc. work?
-- Concern that some will come to not work and just mooch off the system?
-- What protections, if any, for US citizens competing for same job?

State your definition and any constraints on open borders and let's have the discussion.

Who is advocating open borders? We don't have anything that looks like open borders right now.


That's a trump line that has been trumped up to mean something, but it doesn't mean anything related to any policy that anyone in the US is in favor of. Using it as a talking point only serves to muddle the waters of an actual discussion.

As for me, I'm for allowing as many as want to come and don't have any red flags in their personal history (i.e., we don't your like country/religion doesn't count). Anyone coming in would be granted citizenship - I'm also against dual citizenship, they should have to pick a country - and all the rights afforded thereto.

At that point they are citizens, so they can compete with others for jobs, as far as mooching off the system there isn't really a greater concern there than with our own populace that I see, entitlements work the same for them as everyone else, etc. Equivalent rights and responsibilities and consequences if they aren't adhered to. Most of this is informed by the fact that, unlike you, I'm not a nationalist - though I definitely respect the way you've clearly laid out your opinion. I consider myself an anti-patriot; I consider it morally wrong to put the needs of someone who was born here above those who were born somewhere else. If anything we have a greater responsibility given the affluence of the United States, which is why I'm for massive increases in foreign aid in most circumstances.

Oh my bad.

What's the category/philosophy of the pro-undocumented crowd? It would be helpful to have a clear POV from each.

Dual citizenship comes up a lot, and I'll remind everyone that some countries have no way for someone to renounce citizenship. My daughter is a Chinese citizen and there's nothing she can do to change that.

So if you allow anyone without red flags to come and become citizens, how many is too many?

e.g. I'm pretty sure if immigration was wide open, plenty of refugees (economic, political, war-stricken) would be streaming into the country

BTW - I know you said you are not for totally open borders but, to me, your statement pretty much is for open borders.

Yes, I bring it up once in a while and you do remind me. Sorry.

In the future, let's assume those that are not forced to retain their former citizenship.

Wait, there are nuances between a GDR-style wall and 'open borders' ? That is like saying you can advocate to tackle gun violence with anything short of a call to seize and destroy all civilian weapons ...

The 2 discussions are weirdly similar, only somewhat slanted 180 degrees. Would be interested hoiw much overlap you get between people refusing fixing GV with the argument “no measure will work well enough to be worth the cost“ and those arguing to damn well spend against evil foreign invaders no matter the cost or effectiveness of measures.

There is also no pro-undocumented crowd from what i read. Only people not seeing it as big enough a problem to warrant the (financial and 'ethical', for lack of a better word) costs of making this into a much higher priority than it warrants. Or people having empathy for the individuals behind the statistic.