NAOS
Well-Known Member
Fair enough.
But then I guess the proof is in the pudding.
Isn't pudding a combination of diverse ingredients?
Fair enough.
But then I guess the proof is in the pudding.
Glad you agree with everything else I wrote! I didn't mean that it was fortified, but rather that we have very little illegal immigration when compared to the south. The numbers are infinitely smaller, and Canadians usually don't have any problem getting visas if they like. Canadians have a tendency to overstay their visa time limit rather than immigrating illegally. It's not a race thing.
In a 2006 report, Pew estimated that "nearly half of all the unauthorized migrants now living in the United States entered the country legally through a port of entry such as an airport or a border crossing point where they were subject to inspection by immigration officials." While the source data gave an estimate that ranged from 33 percent to 50 percent, the report went middle-of-the-road and called it 45 percent.
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/
Again, who is arguing for no immigration? I am pointing out that their is a more beneficial way to do it rather than completely open and unmonitored borders, including the northern, southern, eastern, and western borders. Arguing that significant immigration is good isn't hard to do, and I personally wouldn't waste my time even trying to do so. The idea of a free for all is much more difficult to argue, and I have seen very little evidence to support the soundness of this argument.
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?
Since social security and pensions depend on young workers supporting the elderly, allowing more tax-paying workers to come in would improve the situation. Not the opposite. Or we can be like Japan, and watch our society slowly collapse as we congratulate each other for our xenophobia.
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 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.
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.
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".
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".
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 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.
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.
Can't think of any other way to interpret that "immigration from European countries is different" comment.