Build That Wall!!

[Gameface]

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.

 

[Siro]

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".

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.

 

[franklin]

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.

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.

 

[Stoked]

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.

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.

 

[Stoked]

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.

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.

 

[Siro]

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.

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.

 

[Stoked]

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)

 

[BYE]

Can't think of any other way to interpret that "immigration from European countries is different" comment.

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.

 

[Siro]

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?

 

[franklin]

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

 

[franklin]

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.

 

[franklin]

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.