NAOS
Well-Known Member
Isn't pudding a combination of diverse ingredients?
Build That Wall!!
- Thread starter BYE
- Start date
Isn't pudding a combination of diverse ingredients?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
overstaying your visa is illegal immigration. It's been estimated that at least a 1/3 and possibly up to half of all illegal immigrants entered the US legally.
https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/
Last edited:
I want an open borders policy. That doesn't mean I want completely uncontrolled immigration. It means I want us to allow at least as many people to enter as are currently entering illegally. Basically I'd like to see supply meet demand. They are here either way. I want them to be here legally. I want them to be treated like they are welcome here. I want them here.
I don't want a cumbersome immigration process that takes years. I don't want to limit immigration to unrealistic levels so that people are motivated to enter illegally. I don't want to continue to push immigrants into a subclass.
The solution to our boarder security is to speed up the immigration process and allow a lot more people in a lot faster.
I think a wall is about as stupid a solution as the could possibly be. Mostly because it's not a solution and even people from the third world have the technology to defeat a wall.
I don't want a cumbersome immigration process that takes years. I don't want to limit immigration to unrealistic levels so that people are motivated to enter illegally. I don't want to continue to push immigrants into a subclass.
The solution to our boarder security is to speed up the immigration process and allow a lot more people in a lot faster.
I think a wall is about as stupid a solution as the could possibly be. Mostly because it's not a solution and even people from the third world have the technology to defeat a wall.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm still looking for your overall point about this.
I guess at the end of the day it's going to come down to what the majority of the people in a given country feels about what level and quality and type of immigration is appropriate for that said country.
What country would not want an influx of high quality, highly educated and motivated workforce to boost their economy?
To me, a totally open door, open the flood gate type policy isn't going to go down well anywhere.
What country would not want an influx of high quality, highly educated and motivated workforce to boost their economy?
To me, a totally open door, open the flood gate type policy isn't going to go down well anywhere.
Let's say that you allow anyone with a clean background to come into the country and work. That's an open-border policy. You'll have a ton of immigrants, just like you've had for the majority of America's existence. That turned out just fine. What's the problem?
Europe has an open border policy that includes some of the poor countries in Europe (their situation is improving partly due to the policy) along with the rich. What's the problem?
Well, I think that where we're at now is very different from most times in history. The economy is very different, and considering people were riding horses and buggies less than 100 years ago makes one pause when we use history as precedent.
We also have major problems with segregation and poverty in certain parts of our work force, and the poorest and least educated portions or our population are most affected by large influxes of poorly educated immigrants. This article/summary has some interesting data.
https://cis.org/node/4573
I do think that there is something behind Trump's popularity with the least educated people of our country, and it's not just bigotry and hate (although there's a ****load of this too). There seems to be a genuine fear and feeling of helplessness, and these types of people are particularly vulnerable to influence, as Hitler and Mussolini showed. Mass amounts of poorly educated immigrants affect the lives of these people without question, so I would appreciate a decision-making board to regulate immigration of the poorly skilled and poorly educated so that we can try to help the disenfranchised in our own country. I'm not saying only allow highly-skilled immigrants but rather not to allow millions of poorly educated immigrants each year, which could be a reality if we opened the boarders. If it turned out that every immigrant with a clear background who wanted to work in the US and pay taxes etc. was well within what experts found to be optimal, then, I would be all for it.
Europe's a whole other animal, and each country is complex and often very unique, take Greece, Switzerland, and Germany for example. The issues accompanying immigration are not complete by any means in Europe. I would argue that there is a difference between inter European immigration and extra European immigration. We will see how it plays itself out, but overall, I think the European Union has been good for the poorer countries and has streamlined many aspects of life within the countries of Europe in general.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
yup, this was a commonly espoused fear while I was there for 6 months. Their entire social welfare structure is teetering & about to collapse once the younger generation attempts to support the incoming elderly. Massive tank in population, likely reversal in life expectancy
Yes, the economy is different than it was a 100 years ago, but how does that affect our outlook on immigration? What is it about modern service-oriented economies that would make them benefit less from immigration than the industrial economy of a century ago? And why is inter-European immigration different from extra-European immigration? Is it a question of culture? I would like to get to the heart of this debate, instead of beating around the bush.
The feeling of resentment among less-educated whites comes from the fact that the economy has moved forward (in my opinion, as I'm a fan of globalization). We no longer have a plethora of jobs that don't even require high school, but pay $25/hour. The skill-threshold for finding a good job has increased. The benefit to society outweighs the downside. It is inevitable to feel resentment if your living standards have declined because of movement toward globalization. But fact remains, our economy continues to grow, and unemployment remains very low. As a whole we're doing fine.
As for the page you linked, the framing of the findings is a bit nonsensical. Immigrants add a massive 11% to the economy, but then the study complains that they only add 0.2% to the "natives" since that increase in GDP is mostly in the form of wages and benefits. Uh, having more participants in the economy benefits everyone. The bit about natives is irrelevant. I only skimmed through parts of the study since it's huge. But feel free to direct me to the important parts you'd like me to review. I'm not going to read the whole thing.
I don't want to accuse anyone of being racist, but I think people who want secure boarders typically want that because they want to reduce the amount of hispanics in the U.S.. I don't share that desire. I want to let them in.
Can't think of any other way to interpret that "immigration from European countries is different" comment.
In many cases you would be right. But hardly all.
I want "secure borders". By that I mean where we control, and thereby know what is and is not coming across our borders. I also want increased immigration and a streamlined process. The illegal immigrants, usually Hispanic, that are here are mostly hard working family men and women. The exact people we should be welcoming into America. We need to make it more realistic and affordable to get in.
To me "secure border" does not equal "closed border".
I think we pretty much agree. I wouldn't lead with a desire for secure boarders, though. Immigration reform MUST come first. Once we let all the people in that want to come here for peaceful purposes it's a lot easier to know that the people coming illegally have a nefarious reason for doing so.
That's well and good (although a waste of money if you open up immigration procedure), that's not what the immigration debate is all about. Anti-immigration side wants to deport "illegal" immigrants and limit immigration from Latin America.
I was going to post something along these lines in much less sophisticated speak. This is something that people who study the poorest areas of America continue to point to as one of the problems (that at some point working people being undercut will give up and accept welfare life sort of as a middle finger up in the air attitude).
I also don't like the America-centric POV that [MENTION=40]Siro[/MENTION] is providing. Yes, America benefits greatly from immigration, but what are the effects on those losing their best, brightest, and hardest workers? It's the same issue we have at home in our poorest areas.
I want everyone in the world to succeed and I see migration as a barrier that creates poverty in certain situations.
Oh I agree that immigration reform is a must. Has been for a long time. Securing the border and controlling the flow is a natural extension of that. Even when you are liberal, as I hope we would be, with the flow.
Also true, NSA, investment in Mexico and Central America would go a long way towards making this better as well.
It's what it should be about. Political pandering is driving this debate. The Rs, like is often the case, are pandering to their base without really talking about what that would entail. Both sides have no true interest in fixing it IMO. To useful of a tool to rile up their supporters come voting day.
I have yet to hear a single plan to deport all the illegal immigrants that would not violate the rights of citizens and legal residents. Like protection from illegal search and seizure.
I disagree that knowing what and who is coming across our borders is a waste of money.
Interesting as usual. I'd have to think about what you're saying. But doesn't Mexico benefit greatly from American dollars flowing back to their economy from immigrants in the US? I don't think I have an America-centric POV, and I try to look for solutions that lift everyone. I'd have to do some reading on the issue from the perspective you provided.
I'd love to see America take some of the Trillions spent blowing up the ME and improve the universities in central America and get their citizens into degrees. (for example)
Not sure if you're referring to what I said; I'm not sure who or what your talking about exactly. Perhaps this: "I would argue that there is a difference between inter European immigration and extra European immigration."?? This was in the context of internal immigration within the European Union vs. external immigration into countries within the European Union ("inter" "extra"). Tough to argue that this is racism (via limiting "Hispanics", which GameFace mentioned) considering the original "Hispanics" were from Hispania, which is in the European Union. Not sure if you were even addressing anything I said.