What's new

Build That Wall!!

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 European Unions. 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.

Countries that were not part of the EU were admitted into it, thus allowing freedom of movement between the newly expanded EU. Your comment about Hispanics being from Hispania (LOL) is irrelevant and purposely misses the point.

Stop with the dishonesty. Why is migration of whites different than migration of non-whites?
 
I don't think I have an America-centric POV,

I don't think you have an American-centric POV. What you wrote was.


But doesn't Mexico benefit greatly from American dollars flowing back to their economy from immigrants in the US?

Yes.

"Remittances, the earnings that Mexican workers in the U.S. send home, quietly replaced oil revenues as Mexico’s number one source of foreign income last year....

In 2016, first quarter remittances of $6.2 billion were 56.7% higher than the $2.6 billion earned from oil exports for the same period. The remittances for the quarter represents an 8.6% jump over the funds sent in the same period in 2015, according to Mexico’s Central Bank data.

Last year, Mexican remittances were $24.8 billion, while oil exports were $18.7 billion. With remittances growing and oil revenues decreasing, the pattern is likely to continue."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doliae...s-main-source-of-foreign-income/#59ef38a4703b
 
Here's a good article on the subject Siro. https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol3num3/article3.pdf

"■ Inner-city poverty results from migration processes that simultaneously remove the
middle-class and successful members of the community, thereby reducing social
capital, while bringing in new, poorer populations whose competition in the labor
market drives down wages and employment chances of residents."

This concept can easily be extended on a global scale. Obviously our isolated problems are not similar to that of entire countries but the theory is still quite applicable. Globally, we pay a price for this as well, as there is no free lunch. In a way, we export jobs and debt in exchange for the brightest of the world coming here and lifting us up. Those of my persuasion think our balance of payments and trade deficit are very much in our favor despite the ugly looking negative number attached.
 
A side note (from the same paper) to conservatives worried about losing their way of life to illegal immigrants browning up the country:

"Inner-city poverty is the product of the complex interaction of culture and behavior,
which has produced a population that is isolated, self-referential, and detached from
the formal economy and labor market.
"

If you want people to assimilate then don't isolate them. You are creating exactly what you stand against.
 
Countries that were not part of the EU were admitted into it, thus allowing freedom of movement between the newly expanded EU. Your comment about Hispanics being from Hispania (LOL) is irrelevant and purposely misses the point.

Stop with the dishonesty. Why is migration of whites different than migration of non-whites?

I hope we're above calling one another liars. You can label people what you want when it comes to race and respective melanin. I never ever brought up skin color, and you inferred it from something I said through some mental gymnastics, but were grossly mistaken.

I’m well aware of what the EU did, but why have they not admitted every country in the world, like Turkey for example? The EU has been very good for many of its countries. Does this serve as a model for opening up its borders? All they’ve done is change the borders and include countries they cherry picked.

The EU does not simply open its borders. A "white" Ukrainian person has nowhere near the freedom of movement and citizenship rights as does a "black" citizen of France, when it comes to the EU. The immigration within the EU, or movement from one country to the next, is not the same as someone immigrating from outside the EU into the EU. I don't give a **** about their skin color or relative shading. I'm not even sure where you got the race aspect from. The EU has external immigrants from Switzerland, Syria, Morocco, Egypt, and Nigeria. What the hell does this have to do with race?

As far as “Hispania” is concerned, I don't know why this is far-fetched. Spain is already within the EU, and Mexico has many disparate cultures and genetic histories from the many indigenous peoples of Quintana Roo to the more "European" or “Spanish” mestizos. I still have no idea where you got race from. Europe or “European” is not a race as I'm sure you're well aware, and there is no racially uniform immigration group coming into the EU and other countries like Russia and Switzerland.

I am still missing your point, and never saw it to begin with. I wasn’t referring to the U.S. at all.
 
Last edited:
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.

Here is the profile for the guy who wrote the article: https://cis.org/Camarota

His main point is about the fiscal impact of low to moderately educated immigrants, not because they're immigrants per se but because they have very little education (referring to the immigrants who don't have a lot of education that is).

Here are some of his main points, but you can start reading at "Fiscal Impact" right above the graphs if you want to read it yourself. Here are some highlights.
https://cis.org/node/4573

In the modern American economy, those with relatively little education (immigrant or native) earn modest wages on average, and by design they make modest tax contributions. Because of their relatively low incomes, the less educated, or their dependent children, are often eligible for welfare and other means-tested programs. As a result, the less educated use more in services than they pay in taxes. This is true for less-educated natives, less-educated legal immigrants, and less-educated illegal immigrants. There is simply no question about this basic fact.

The relationship between educational attainment and net fiscal impact is the key to understanding the fiscal impact of immigrants, legal or illegal. Figure 2 at the end of the report makes clear why less-educated immigrants are a net fiscal drain on average. Households headed by immigrants with a high school education or less have high rates of welfare use and relatively low income tax liability. Figure 3 shows that less-educated natives also have high rates of welfare use and low income tax liability. This is an indication that it is education levels, not being an immigrant per se that creates the costs.

In the case of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of adults have modest levels of education, averaging only 10 years of schooling. This fact is the primary reason they are a net fiscal drain, not their legal status.

It must also be understood that use of welfare and work often go together. Of immigrant-headed households using welfare in 2011, 86 percent had at least one worker during the year. The non-cash welfare system is specifically designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children. There are also a number of other programs in addition to welfare that provide assistance to low-income workers, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and the cash portion of the Additional Child Tax Credit.

The just-released Heritage Foundation study found that households headed by a legal immigrant who had not graduated high school used, on average, $36,993 more in services than they paid in taxes. Households headed by a legal immigrant with only a high school education created a net fiscal deficit of $18,327, those with some college created a deficit of $7,489 and those headed by an immigrant with at least a college education created a fiscal benefit of $24,529.24 This analysis confirms the finding from the NRC study discussed in the bullets and the results in Figures 2 and 3 — education is the key to understanding the fiscal impact of immigrants.

There is no better predictor of one's income, tax payments, or use of public services in modern America than one's education level. The vast majority of immigrants come as adults, and it should come as no surprise that the education they bring with them is a key determinant of their net fiscal impact.

CONCLUSION
Immigration makes the U.S. economy larger. However, for the native-born population immigration (legal and illegal) is primarily a redistributive policy; it does not substantially raise the overall income of native-born Americans. As for the fiscal impact of immigration, the education level of the immigrants in question is the key to understanding their fiscal impact. If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be remembered that it is simply not possible to fund social programs by bringing in large numbers of immigrants with relatively little education. This is central to the debate on illegal immigration given that such a large share of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education. The fiscal problem created by less-educated immigrants exists even though the vast majority of immigrants, including illegal immigrants, work and did not come to America to get welfare. The realities of the modern American economy coupled with the modern American administrative state make large fiscal costs an unavoidable problem of large scale, less-educated immigration. However, all the available evidence indicates that skilled immigration should be a significant fiscal benefit.

He also addresses some counterarguments, which he largely negates.
 
Last edited:
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".

Securing the Border is 100% a waste of effort and money that ends up hurting the people then we do want to come here. I don't know if you've ever lost your ID but not having papers in this country sucks. Everything is harder. Offer these people the opportunity to register as a resident and get an ID, visa, that will help them find a job and 99% of them will do it voluntarily. It makes no sense to make life harder for 10 million people in order to try to prevent hard drugs, criminals, and terroris from entering the country, it is a misallocation of resources how to focus on 10 million people. If you want to stop those things then you need to spend money on intelligence gathering. You need to make sure that there's not millions of people in your country that are afraid to contact law enforcement. If those are the things that truly are your concern then let's focus on that not immigrants don't want to come here and Chase the American dream.

Posting from my phone it's kind of a pain in the ***.
 
Securing the Border is 100% a waste of effort and money that ends up hurting the people then we do want to come here. I don't know if you've ever lost your ID but not having papers in this country sucks. Everything is harder. Offer these people the opportunity to register as a resident and get an ID, visa, that will help them find a job and 99% of them will do it voluntarily. It makes no sense to make life harder for 10 million people in order to try to prevent hard drugs, criminals, and terroris from entering the country, it is a misallocation of resources how to focus on 10 million people. If you want to stop those things then you need to spend money on intelligence gathering. You need to make sure that there's not millions of people in your country that are afraid to contact law enforcement. If those are the things that truly are your concern then let's focus on that not immigrants don't want to come here and Chase the American dream.

Posting from my phone it's kind of a pain in the ***.

Lol nothing you said contradicts anything I said after don't spend the money.
 
The Great Mexican Wall Deception.
No need to build the Donald's wall, it's built....

https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176179/tomgram:_todd_miller,_the_great_mexican_wall_deception/

"Despite all the attention given to the wall and the border this election season, neither the Trump nor Clinton campaigns have mentioned “Prevention Through Deterrence,” nor the subsequent border deaths. Not once. The same goes for the establishment media that can't stop talking about Trump’s wall. There has been little or no mention of what border groups have long called a “humanitarian crisis” of deaths that have increased five-fold over the last decade, thanks, in part, to a wall that already exists. (If the people dying were Canadians or Europeans, attention would, of course, be paid.)"

"....The 2006 wall-building project was expected to be so environmentally destructive that homeland security chief Michael Chertoff waived 37 environmental and cultural laws in the name of national security. In this way, he allowed Border Patrol bulldozers to desecrate protected wilderness and sacred land.

“Imagine a bulldozer parking in your family graveyard, turning up bones,” Chairman Ned Norris, Jr., of the Tohono O’odham Nation (a Native American tribe whose original land was cut in half by the U.S. border) told Congress in 2008. “This is our reality.”

With a price tag of, on average, $4 million a mile, these border walls, barriers, and fences have proven to be one of the costliest border infrastructure projects undertaken by the United States. For private border contractors, on the other hand, it’s the gift that just keeps on giving. In 2011, for example, the DHS granted Kellogg, Brown, and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, one of our “warrior corporations,” a $24.4 million upkeep contract."
 
Lol nothing you said contradicts anything I said after don't spend the money.

You said secure borders. I realize that it was in quotes but still the whole concept of securing the border needs to be abandoned. You can't secure the border and if you could it would be wasteful and lame. You can however offer immigrants security. You can enhance security by not worrying about the imaginary line. I don't want "secure borders". You said that you do.

You said that you want to control who and what crosses the border. I think that is a huge waste. The money that you would spend inspecting every truck crossing the border carrying avocados I would spend on detectives and whatnot. There is a huge difference. You are advocating for a huge bureaucratic effort that literally puts up roadblocks and isn't likely to accomplish much of anything. You may argue that you are not in favor of that but if you are for, " By that I mean where we control, and thereby know what is and is not coming across our borders.", than that is exactly what you are proposing.

I don't think we can hope to control or know what crosses the border, I really don't see the need to, it would be(is) crazy expensive, and it would be(is) very burdensome to a great many people.
 
Here's a good article on the subject Siro. https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/cityscpe/vol3num3/article3.pdf

"■ Inner-city poverty results from migration processes that simultaneously remove the
middle-class and successful members of the community, thereby reducing social
capital, while bringing in new, poorer populations whose competition in the labor
market drives down wages and employment chances of residents."

This concept can easily be extended on a global scale. Obviously our isolated problems are not similar to that of entire countries but the theory is still quite applicable. Globally, we pay a price for this as well, as there is no free lunch. In a way, we export jobs and debt in exchange for the brightest of the world coming here and lifting us up. Those of my persuasion think our balance of payments and trade deficit are very much in our favor despite the ugly looking negative number attached.

I think that you could look at the freedom of movement within the US between states and that the benefits of that would also be applicable globally(at least regionally). Why should we not look to the internal policies that made the US a success as a model for dealing with our neighbors?

On the issue of inner cities: Without freedom of movement we wouldn't be seeing the current turnaround. I think that blame for the migration out of inner cities and the resulting poverty should be placed where it belongs. It shouldn't be placed on immigrants but on racist and xenophobic Americans that abandoned the cities because they didn't want to live next to blacks and immigrants.
 
You said secure borders. I realize that it was in quotes but still the whole concept of securing the border needs to be abandoned. You can't secure the border and if you could it would be wasteful and lame. You can however offer immigrants security. You can enhance security by not worrying about the imaginary line. I don't want "secure borders". You said that you do.

You said that you want to control who and what crosses the border. I think that is a huge waste. The money that you would spend inspecting every truck crossing the border carrying avocados I would spend on detectives and whatnot. There is a huge difference. You are advocating for a huge bureaucratic effort that literally puts up roadblocks and isn't likely to accomplish much of anything. You may argue that you are not in favor of that but if you are for, " By that I mean where we control, and thereby know what is and is not coming across our borders.", than that is exactly what you are proposing.

I don't think we can hope to control or know what crosses the border, I really don't see the need to, it would be(is) crazy expensive, and it would be(is) very burdensome to a great many people.


Well then here we will certainly disagree. Even if I'm liberal in who comes over. I do not think it's a waste. Thanks for the reply.
 
I think that you could look at the freedom of movement within the US between states and that the benefits of that would also be applicable globally(at least regionally). Why should we not look to the internal policies that made the US a success as a model for dealing with our neighbors?

On the issue of inner cities: Without freedom of movement we wouldn't be seeing the current turnaround. I think that blame for the migration out of inner cities and the resulting poverty should be placed where it belongs. It shouldn't be placed on immigrants but on racist and xenophobic Americans that abandoned the cities because they didn't want to live next to blacks and immigrants.

I see it in reverse of how you do. When large industry moved away from expensive inner city real estate and into the cheap countryside, AA couldn't follow their jobs as they couldn't get either a home loan or a place to rent. This led to a lot of the policy issues that eventually helped cause the 2008 crash.

White people decided that all these newly jobless individuals needed to be rounded up so we built walls and barricades and created Section 8 housing to effectively segregate a population that was winning that war. Detroit actually built a wall much earlier to segregate and its effects are still being well felt.

It shouldn't be placed on immigrants but on racist and xenophobic Americans that abandoned the cities because they didn't want to live next to blacks and immigrants.

I speak in terms of the current environment, which has been status quo for at least 3 decades now and not when whites moved away from blackey. Again, whites have not abandoned cities. We have rounded them up and effectively walled them off without jobs and a negative culture that perpetuates problems.
 
Top