The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The sad part is that population trends suggest we will need more and more of these immigrants to support an aging population with a falling birth rate.

So keeping immigrants out (whether it works or not) merely exacerbates what will become a major problem in the near future.

This this this. A million times this.

[JediKooter]

The FBI, with its flaws, still doing their job:

Watchdog report finds FBI not motivated by political bias in Trump probe

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The FBI, with its flaws, still doing their job:

Watchdog report finds FBI not motivated by political bias in Trump probe

And already disputed by Barr. Barr's findings are going to cause a shitshow of consequences when they're released.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Honestly, I have no idea what the numbers are and don't think that's really important if you reeaaally just want to stop illegal immigration, regardless if it's 1 or 1,000,000. However, the argument the right/conservatives always like to use is "What part of ILLEGAL do liberals not understand?". So if it really is just about illegal immigrants, then they would want a wall in the north and south. They would also realize that most people here illegally were here legally initially, then they would want a wall at all the airports, seaports and up down our coast lines. But in reality, it isn't about how many illegal immigrants there are, it's about the non white ones.

If you have unlimited resources then your argument makes more sense. But we don't so we're going to throw more resources at where there are more crossings.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's the best use of those resources, but It would be absurd to waste them on a border where (according to Edwards numbers) there are very few crossings.

Personally I think all illegal immigrants should be caught and given a proper punishment regardless of color. Let them come legally if they want to come.

And it's quite bigoted to think that everyone who is for immigration laws is a racist.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If you have unlimited resources then your argument makes more sense. But we don't so we're going to throw more resources at where there are more crossings.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's the best use of those resources, but It would be absurd to waste them on a border where (according to Edwards numbers) there are very few crossings.

Personally I think all illegal immigrants should be caught and given a proper punishment regardless of color. Let them come legally if they want to come.

And it's quite bigoted to think that everyone who is for immigration laws is a racist.

A thousand times this. I am open to what we decide the laws actually are, but I have a problem with us not enforcing whatever laws we do decide to have on the books.

Also, I am in favor of making it easier to become a citizen and more worthwhile to become a citizen.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A thousand times this. I am open to what we decide the laws actually are, but I have a problem with us not enforcing whatever laws we do decide to have on the books.

Oh, so YOU are the guy ahead of me driving precisely 55 miles per hour. Ugh.

[cartman]

Most people aren't aware that initial immigration violations are a civil, not criminal offense. And when they hear that people aren't being arrested, that turns into "we aren't enforcing the laws on the books".

[Edward64]

(Going to break this into 3 parts - AIC, Cato, Studies where wall will be effective)

Originally Posted by Atocep

Previous administrations didn't push the need for this because it because both parties deemed expanding the border wall expensive, unfeasible, and unnecessary.

The High Cost and Diminishing Returns of a Border Wall | American Immigration Council

The only reason the GOP is supporting a border wall now is because Trump made is popular with his based during his campaign and we've seen congressional GOP will do absolutely anything to avoid alienating Trump's base.

The AIC report was not documenting why it wouldn't work. It was more a summary of events/discussions that has occurred.

1. Extensive physical barriers already exist along the U.S.-Mexico border
2. In the past, Congress acknowledged that additional physical barriers were not necessary
3. Border barriers are expensive
4. Until recently, federal agencies maintained that the wall was unnecessary
5. There are complications to building a wall
6. Border barriers create a host of additional problems

Of these sections, I would like to add counter argument to quotes from #4.

Though recent comments by the DHS leadership and GOP members of Congress show support for a wall, this is a change in tone from their past insistence that a wall was not necessary. Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Gil Kerlikowske said in January 2017, “I think that anyone who’s been familiar with the southwest border and the terrain ... kind of recognizes that building a wall along the entire southwest border is probably not going to work,” adding that he does not “think it is feasible” or the “smartest way to use taxpayer money on infrastructure.”

The head of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents which endorsed President Trump during his campaign, said, “We do not need a wall along the entire 2,000 miles of border.” He went on to say, “If I were to quantify an actual number, I would say that we need about 30 percent. Thirty percent of our border has to have an actual fence [or] wall.” The existing 650 miles make up more than 30 percent of the 2,000 mile border.

According to an internal U.S. government study obtained by Reuters in April 2016, CBP indicated that more technology is needed along the border to create a “virtual wall.” The agency requested better radios and more aerial drones, but only 23 more miles of fences.

I'm not sure of the sequencing or timing, but here's a quote from 4/2018. It seems to be an out-of-sync between Border Patrol management vs folks on the ground? I think its fair to say there is honest disagreement but can't really answer why the difference is so wide.

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds - Washington Times

Border Patrol agents say they can’t be much clearer: They want more walls along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In a survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly supported adding a “wall system” in strategic locations, embracing President Trump’s argument that it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants.

Agents also said they need the government to change the “catch and release” policy. They often have to immediately release illegal border crossers they arrest, giving them the chance to disappear into the shadows with the 11 million other illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The findings, shared with The Washington Times, appear to undercut the argument of congressional Democrats, who released a report last month concluding that line agents didn’t support Mr. Trump’s plans for a wall. The report was based on an internal tool used by Homeland Security to evaluate security gaps.

The NBPC’s survey, of more than 600 agents in two of the Border Patrol’s busiest sectors, found just the opposite: A stunning 89 percent of line agents say a “wall system in strategic locations is necessary to securing the border.” Just 7 percent disagreed.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Atocep

And already disputed by Barr. Barr's findings are going to cause a shitshow of consequences when they're released.

I beginning to think this Barr guy isn't quite on the up and up.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A thousand times this. I am open to what we decide the laws actually are, but I have a problem with us not enforcing whatever laws we do decide to have on the books.

Also, I am in favor of making it easier to become a citizen and more worthwhile to become a citizen.

Are you also in favor of increasing the size of the IRS 100 fold so we can audit every return and actually put a stop to tax evasion?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Oh, so YOU are the guy ahead of me driving precisely 55 miles per hour. Ugh.

No, I will do 10% over. I just don't bitch when I get pulled over for speeding.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If you have unlimited resources then your argument makes more sense. But we don't so we're going to throw more resources at where there are more crossings.

I'm not going to pretend I know what's the best use of those resources, but It would be absurd to waste them on a border where (according to Edwards numbers) there are very few crossings.

Personally I think all illegal immigrants should be caught and given a proper punishment regardless of color. Let them come legally if they want to come.

And it's quite bigoted to think that everyone who is for immigration laws is a racist.

Disagree with you to a certain point. The resources would be wasted on a wall. Where as the resources spent on a better more efficient system to admit people into this country would not be. But let's not muddy the waters here. The wall, the philosophy and the polices behind it are what's being called racist (including the people that support it for the same reasons). Also, I don't think anyone is against immigration laws and no one is advocating for open borders, even on liberal left. What we are asking for are policies and laws that don't discriminate based on the outside characteristics of the human beings that are trying to come to America.

If people don't want to sound or be labeled as a racist, then don't sound or act like a racist. It's pretty simple, and when people advocate for only a southern wall, coupled with the presidents* comments, kind of hard to not take it as being racist. The very same president* that has a literal white supremacist (stephen miller) and had a card carrying nazi (sabastian gorka) working in his administration. Plus, I don't really care if I'm bigoted towards racists.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Are you also in favor of increasing the size of the IRS 100 fold so we can audit every return and actually put a stop to tax evasion?

Last I checked, the IRS has no purview over matters of immigration.

Using QS's example, this would be like saying we need to increase the number of police 100 fold to prevent everyone from speeding.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Cato institute article on why a border wall won't work for further reading:

Why the Wall Won't Work | Cato Institute

Some quotes from the Cato article (hope this is a fair representation of their argument)

One storm in Texas left a hole for months. Fences and walls can also erode near rivers or beaches, as the one in San Diego did. And they can be penetrated: Some fencing can be cut in minutes, and the Border Patrol reported repairing more than 4,000 holes in one year alone. They neglected to mention whether that number equaled that year's number of breaches.

Yes, I do think there will be maintenance challenges.

But the biggest practical problem with a wall is its opacity. In fact, many Border Patrol agents oppose a concrete wall for precisely this reason (albeit quietly, given that they were also some of Trump's biggest supporters during the election). "A cinder block or rock wall, in the traditional sense, isn't necessarily the most effective or desirable choice," Border Patrol agents told Fox News. "Seeing through a fence allows agents to anticipate and mobilize, prior to illegal immigrants actually climbing or cutting through the fence."

I think this has been answered with the photos of current wall being built. Its not a wall-wall but a fence-wall that does have "opacity".

Much of the current fencing can be easily mounted with a ladder or from the roof of a truck. In some cases, border crossers can scale the fence without any additional equipment. One viral video from 2010 shows two women easily climbing an 18-foot steel bollard-style pedestrian fence in less than 20 seconds. Smugglers can even drive over the fence using ramps, a fact that was discovered only when a couple of foolish drug entrepreneurs managed to get their SUV stuck on top. (They took the dope and split.)

If not over or through, some crossers may opt to go under. Tunnels are typically used more for drug smuggling, but they still create a significant vulnerability in any kind of physical barrier. From 2007 to 2010, the Border Patrol found more than one tunnel per month, on average. "For every tunnel we find, we feel they're building another one somewhere,"

To put it most simply, border barriers will never stop illegal immigration, because a wall or fence cannot apprehend crossers. The agents that Fox News spoke to called a wall "meaningless" without agents and technology to back it up.

There is no doubt if it was just the wall, it won't be enough. There does need to be people & technology monitoring it. Is it part of the $10B package or is there enough of it, I don't know. However, using extremes from a prior post, if it was a $1T budget, yeah, I think there would be enough technology & people. If it was a $40B budget, I would hope so.

Let me state again, regardless of what Trump says, we all know a wall is not impenetrable nor 100%. The discussion topic I think is whether a wall will significantly (my swag hope is 70-80%) reduce illegals crossing over.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Last I checked, the IRS has no purview over matters of immigration.

Using QS's example, this would be like saying we need to increase the number of police 100 fold to prevent everyone from speeding.

You said you have a problem with enforcement of laws. We lose an estimated $200-400 billion a year (depending on the source) from tax evasion.

Or does enforcement of laws only apply to immigration?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I throw the ball back in your court. Find a well sourced and reliable study that shows a border wall will be effective. The DHS website is pretty much the only place you'll find data showing a wall will work and the DHS didn't believe that as recently as 3 years ago because the government's own internal studies showed otherwise.

The only substantive study I was able to find is the Yuma study from DHS. I would counter I did not see any study from DHS that says "own internal studies showed otherwise" (e.g. don't see how that invalidates this study).

This Yuma study was published in Dec 2017 which implies the benefits this study states occurred pre-Trump and very early Trump.

However, I think we can both agree that there are political considerations so yeah, it wouldn't be unbelievable that Border Patrol/DHS top dogs want to make Trump happy so they say (or change) what they have to say.

Arizona Border Wall Case Study

The Yuma sector has already shown positive evidence about how impedance and denial provide the benefit of extra time to assist agents with response time and sometimes advance warning with a modern see-through fence that an entry may occur. Therefore, with the advancements made in deploying capabilities in support of impedance and denial of illegal entries, including technology at the immediate border, additional fence can help improve security in the United States in locations where law enforcement response time is limited. The Tucson sector is a candidate for additional miles of wall based on the need to increase certainty of arrest in certain border zones.

As seen in the Yuma sector, an entire AOR does not need to have a wall or fence for control to be gained and sustained. As discussed, it costs more than $1.5 billion or more to retrofit a vehicle barrier to a wall across Arizona. This cost does not include building a wall in Arizona in locations where no barrier exists or replacing legacy fencing. Some locations within the current deployment in Tucson sector are good candidates for additional wall investment to improve interdiction effectiveness.

A wall can be employed in varying degrees, according to the operational objective and need in any given environment (e.g., a single fence located on the actual border, a double layer of fencing, lighter or heavier construction). Typically, a wall is intended to facilitate the impedance or denial of illicit cross-border activity. It does so by physically obstructing the act of entry to the point that many or most choose not to attempt entry or are entirely denied the ability to do so. Some of the effects of a wall in its various forms are that it physically denies terrain, increases vanishing times (the amount of time the adversaries generally has before they have access to shelter or transport), contains incursions to the immediate border, and protects community, businesses, and other sensitive environments.

The fullest effects of a wall are manifested when complemented by other supportive capabilities, such as new detection technologies, personnel increases, and improved road access. In fact, when these capabilities are strategically combined, a wall serves as the backbone of which operational control can be achieved. In concert with other capabilities provided through personnel, technology, and partnerships, impedance and denial through fencing is critical to the USBP mission.

This thesis provides evidence that a wall or fence presents a viable option to improve the security of some sections of the southern border represents an area across the southwest border that is higher priority for some segments of new wall construction, especially in areas where their interdiction effectiveness rate is below the national average. Yuma is lower priority. The analysis used in this thesis can most likely be applied in a similar way across other geographical areas or sectors along the U.S. border with Mexico. More research is potentially needed regarding the denying of terrain and what interdiction effectiveness percentage truly impacts the business model
of smugglers profiting from illegal entry into the United States.

FWIW, an additional data point also from Cato Nov 2016

A Wall Is an Impractical, Expensive, and Ineffective Border Plan | Cato @ Liberty

The most important question in this debate is how much illegal immigration is reduced per each additional dollar spent on a wall compared to each additional dollar spent on more manpower or other technologies. Despite the importance of this question, apparently no estimate of the impact of the current border fence on illegal immigration exists at all, let alone a comparison to other technologies. This is despite more than a decade to conduct such a study for the recent fences, and even longer to study the earlier fences.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) attempted to obtain the answer to this exact question from the administration as a sitting congressman on the House Homeland Security Committee and failed. A Migration Policy Institute 2016 review of the impact of walls and fences around the world turned up no academic literature specifically on the deterrent effect of physical barriers and concluded somewhat vaguely that walls appear to be “relatively ineffective.” The closest thing I could find to a cost-benefit analysis of this type was from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, who concluded after careful study in 2015 that “it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border.” Rep. McCaul, however, did not detail the methodology underlying his conclusion.

So bottom line to me, lots of opinions and Trump's "impenetrable wall" BS notwithstanding, no substantive study the wall+other stuff won't work, only one substantive study the wall+other stuff may work.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The discussion topic I think is whether a wall will significantly (my swag hope is 70-80%) reduce illegals crossing over.

It won’t. These people literally walk thousands of miles for a chance at a better life. Do you really think an easily penetrable wall will deter them?

It’s amazing to me anyone can see this as anything other than an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem designed to appease a very xenophobic portion of the population.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It won’t. These people literally walk thousands of miles for a chance at a better life. Do you really think an easily penetrable wall will deter them?

See the above quoted Yuma study. Its the only one I could find that seems/look substantive (reminds me of my college papers) that provide evidence that it does deter. I have not seen an equivalent study that says otherwise (e.g. vs opinions, if you have one or something that contradicts the Yuma study I would like to read it).

It’s amazing to me anyone can see this as anything other than an overly simplistic solution to a complex problem designed to appease a very xenophobic portion of the population.

I am not saying (nor I think anyone else on this board that is pro-wall) that a Wall by itself will solve the problem.

[Lathum]

So how is the wall going to deter people? Will they just not bother to come even though evidence indicates you can bypass it? Will they walk thousands of miles just to see an easily passable barrier and turn around? Will they try and pass it and get caught?

Answer me that, exactly how will it significantly reduce illegal immigration to the point that makes it economically sensible?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So how is the wall going to deter people? Will they just not bother to come even though evidence indicates you can bypass it? Will they walk thousands of miles just to see an easily passable barrier and turn around? Will they try and pass it and get caught?

Assuming when you refer to the wall it is the wall+other stuff (people, technology etc.). It will deter illegals because less illegals will be able to successfully cross (e.g. they'll get caught) and those wanting to cross over in the future will have to assess whether its worth the cost/risk/etc. (e.g. they may not want to take the arduous journey with a good likelihood of failing).

Answer me that, exactly how will it significantly reduce illegal immigration to the point that makes it economically sensible?

On economically feasible, I've not claimed it was. That's because I don't know of a study that has been done. No one know how much the wall will end up costing because it seems to be done piecemeal right now.

Question to you:

1) Do you believe we have an illegal immigration problem from south of the border? Both in annual crossings and/or also living in the country
2) If you do believe we have a problem, how would you resolve the issue?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cartman

Most people aren't aware that initial immigration violations are a civil, not criminal offense. And when they hear that people aren't being arrested, that turns into "we aren't enforcing the laws on the books".

Not an immigration attorney but per below, the illegal entry (e.g. initial immigration violation) is a "crime".

Is being in the United States unlawfully a 'crime'? | PolitiFact Florida

That said, it’s also important to distinguish between "unlawful presence" and "unlawful entry," said Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor. Improper entry by an alien is indeed a misdemeanor, Roosevelt said.

This distinction can make the use of these terms tricky.

For instance, an undocumented immigrant who entered the United States improperly would have committed a crime. However, once that person is here, the simple act of being in the United States unlawfully is not by itself a crime.

"It is a crime to cross the border other than as designated by immigration officials, but there is no separate crime for being unlawfully present in the United States," Chin said.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

You said you have a problem with enforcement of laws. We lose an estimated $200-400 billion a year (depending on the source) from tax evasion.

Or does enforcement of laws only apply to immigration?

I'll answer your question with a question, do you think completely open borders are acceptable?

[JPhillips]

UNITED NATIONS – The United States changed its mind and is now refusing to sign a letter that would have authorized the U.N. Security Council to hold a meeting Tuesday on the human rights situation in North Korea, diplomats said Monday.

Without support from the United States, European and other countries that wanted the U.N.’s most powerful body to discuss human rights in North Korea can’t go ahead because they are now one vote short of the minimum nine “yes” votes required, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because discussions were private.

So much winning.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Question to you:

1) Do you believe we have an illegal immigration problem from south of the border? Both in annual crossings and/or also living in the country
2) If you do believe we have a problem, how would you resolve the issue?

I think we have somewhat of a problem in the sense of people coming here illegally, and likely always will given our prosperity, need for cheap labor, and proximity to those countries.

However, I do not feel people coming across illegally are causing a problem. This is a completely manufactured crisis by an administration pandering to its racist, xenophobic base. When the POTUS refers to them as rapists and murderers, and he assumes some of them are good people, that rhetoric makes it seem like a far worse problem than it is. It takes these illegals from largely invisible people working jobs most Americans wont do to villains who are going to rape your daughters and force your sons to inject black tar heroine. This is all done for political gain so Trump and Miller can rile up the base. You think it is a surprise every Mollie Tibbetts type killing gets used as an example of how evil the brown people are?

This country has survived illegal immigration for virtually its entire existence, and in many cases been propped up by it. To think this wall is anything other than a bargaining chip to appease his racist base is silly.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

A thousand times this. I am open to what we decide the laws actually are, but I have a problem with us not enforcing whatever laws we do decide to have on the books.

Yep. This is exactly what I was talking about just a few days ago when everyone was talking about how absurd the support for lawless actions of our current POTUS are. And they are right, it is absurd … but then when comments like this get sniped by the very same people, it's clear what the problem is and it's got nothing to do with the law.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Oh, so YOU are the guy ahead of me driving precisely 55 miles per hour. Ugh.

That's me, except in the most literal sense. And suffice to say I don't at all consider myself the problem when it comes to this issue.

Originally Posted by Atocep

Are you also in favor of increasing the size of the IRS 100 fold so we can audit every return and actually put a stop to tax evasion?

An unenforceable law is worse than no law at all. You'll never have 100% enforcement of anything, but any law that can be consistently and flagrantly violated with little fear of consequences is a problem. Auditing every single return isn't necessary, but if you're going to have a law it needs to have a reasonable mechanism for enforcement, or the law should never be passed in the first place and/or be revoked. So in the case here, increasing the size of the IRS would be one option, but not the only one. You could also argue for simplifying the tax code (for multiple reasons, many of which are not directly related to this issue), decriminalizing some tax-related offenses, etc. There are many possible solutions to improve the gap between the law and compliance with it.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The sad part is that population trends suggest we will need more and more of these immigrants to support an aging population with a falling birth rate.

So keeping immigrants out (whether it works or not) merely exacerbates what will become a major problem in the near future.

I'm not sure why this is considered such a good point, since it is at best misleading. Birth rates have been quite flat since the early 70s; much flatter than, for example, they were prior to that point. They've been gradually lowering for the last several years, but only just this past year did they narrowly go below the mid-70s levels. There was an eventual rise then and it's just as reasonable to think that might happen again. Birth rate in the US is still higher than that in China, Canada, Japan, etc. and almost as high as the UK for example, though certainly some developed countries are higher. Overall birth rates worldwide are in decline and that's a good thing in many ways, so the idea of let's just take people from other nations is a really weird proposition IMO. The long-term view shows the US is doing much better than most of the world in sustaining birth rates. We're just fine on that front.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I do not feel people coming across illegally are causing a problem. This is a completely manufactured crisis by an administration pandering to its racist, xenophobic base.

Here's another assertion completely unsupported by the facts. Going back over 50 years, there has never been a time (though it's down to just about even now) - when more people wanted immigration increased than decreased. While opinions have varied significantly over time, almost twice as many thought immigration should be decreased in the mid-90s as do so today. And that's immigration in general, it doesn't even get into the illegal part. If it's a manufactured crisis, Trump's done an absolutely horrible job of it since there's been a steady upward trend starting several years before he was elected in viewing immigration in general as a positive. That trend has not stopped during his administration. This is literally the worst time in modern American history to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiment; there's simply much less of it than there has been in the past.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'll answer your question with a question, do you think completely open borders are acceptable?

No, but a physical barrier is the least effective way of deterring people. For various legal and nature related reasons its also not feasible across large sections of the border. So preventing all or even most illegal immigration is virtually impossible without making serious sacrifices in our budget or our freedoms.

If cutting down on illegal immigration is the true goal then putting the majority of your resources where the vast majority it occurs makes more sense to me. What we've seen along the sections of the border with a wall and strong security is a decrease in illegal crossings offset by an increase in legal crossings that then overstay their visa. Walls don't work.

What does set me off is seeing this administration steal money from military construction projects to build the wall that's going up now. As I described earlier, I've lived in the barracks and military housing some of the money was supposed to go to. My son went to one of the elemtary schools that needs to be replaced. Putting that money into something their own study showed will be ineffective is offensive and should piss off everyone that claims to support the military.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Here's another assertion completely unsupported by the facts. Going back over 50 years, there has never been a time (though it's down to just about even now) - when more people wanted immigration increased than decreased. While opinions have varied significantly over time, almost twice as many thought immigration should be decreased in the mid-90s as do so today. And that's immigration in general, it doesn't even get into the illegal part. If it's a manufactured crisis, Trump's done an absolutely horrible job of it since there's been a steady upward trend starting several years before he was elected in viewing immigration in general as a positive. That trend has not stopped during his administration. This is literally the worst time in modern American history to capitalize on anti-immigrant sentiment; there's simply much less of it than there has been in the past.

Do you recall hearing the rhetoric we hear today about immigrants?

I would imagine people wanting less immigration in the mid 90s came from immigrants coming over here and stealing tech jobs and not keeping out the rapists and murderers.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

No, but a physical barrier is the least effective way of deterring people. For various legal and nature related reasons its also not feasible across large sections of the border. So preventing all or even most illegal immigration is virtually impossible without making serious sacrifices in our budget or our freedoms.

If cutting down on illegal immigration is the true goal then putting the majority of your resources where the vast majority it occurs makes more sense to me. What we've seen along the sections of the border with a wall and strong security is a decrease in illegal crossings offset by an increase in legal crossings that then overstay their visa. Walls don't work.

What does set me off is seeing this administration steal money from military construction projects to build the wall that's going up now. As I described earlier, I've lived in the barracks and military housing some of the money was supposed to go to. My son went to one of the elemtary schools that needs to be replaced. Putting that money into something their own study showed will be ineffective is offensive and should piss off everyone that claims to support the military.

So how is any of what I said contradicted by what you said? Cutting down illegal immigration is the goal, so then what do you propose?

I would argue, that if the result of a wall and strong security is a decrease in illegal crossings offset by an increase in legal crossings that overstay their visa, does make the subsequent deportation easier to do, you at least have a record of it.

That said, I agree that a wall is not an effective means to completely stop it. I am also realistic enough to understand that we are never going to have the number at zero. So the question boils down to a couple of questions:

1) What is an acceptable number of illegals (zero is not realistic and will never be achieved)?

2) What is the best way of turning illegal into legal immigrants? Is it too easy to reap the benefits of citizenship without actually being a citizen?

If I recall, the single largest number of illegals are due to expired work visas. Do we need to follow up with these people more regularly, work with them to extend their visas proactively, and then if their work visa has expired and there is no response, go after their employers?

Do we eliminate work visas and force employers to either hire domestically, or have someone go through everything required to be a full blown citizen?

The reason why the wall gets so much play is it is something tangible people can relate to regardless of the efficacy of it.

Going back to my original point, if we want to completely open the borders, I am all for it. There may be some increase in crime, and there will be some instability initially, but that time should mitigate that. I do think infrastructure near the border would be overwhelmed in the short term. The big threat I see is from terror organizations, but we already run the risk from them where we stand now.

Closing the border is also fine, but we need to invest in doing so. It will be expensive, and the improvement in quality of life for most of us will be negligible if not negative as we will be pulling dollars from other sectors. I am ok with that, but I realize most will not be.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

An unenforceable law is worse than no law at all. You'll never have 100% enforcement of anything, but any law that can be consistently and flagrantly violated with little fear of consequences is a problem. Auditing every single return isn't necessary, but if you're going to have a law it needs to have a reasonable mechanism for enforcement, or the law should never be passed in the first place and/or be revoked. So in the case here, increasing the size of the IRS would be one option, but not the only one. You could also argue for simplifying the tax code (for multiple reasons, many of which are not directly related to this issue), decriminalizing some tax-related offenses, etc. There are many possible solutions to improve the gap between the law and compliance with it.

The most common reason I've seen for support of the border wall has been "it's the law so it should be enforced". We have hundreds of laws that either aren't enforced or are minimally enforced and I don't see anyone running on a platform to end prostitution, speeding, tax evasion, or any of the other unenforceable laws that are either federal or across numerous states.

If we want to try to fix the problem with unenforceable laws I would personally think the best place to start would be the laws where the lack of enforcement are causing the most damage to our country. Another option would be to attack the easiest to resolve. Regardless of which one you choose, that's definitely not illegal immigration. Most studies show that illegal immigration is a net gain for our economy and illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than our own citizens and there simply is no easy solution to cut most of it. However, as I stated above, the IRS's own estimate is we lose $400 billion a year to tax evasion. That does a fair amount of damage to our country. While hiring enough IRS agents to audit every return would be costly and wasteful, it would be far more effective at doing its job than building a wall to stop illegal immigration. A nuanced approach, as you mentioned, would be cheaper while getting the job done well enough. We can do the same with illegal immigration.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

So how is any of what I said contradicted by what you said? Cutting down illegal immigration is the goal, so then what do you propose?

I would argue, that if the result of a wall and strong security is a decrease in illegal crossings offset by an increase in legal crossings that overstay their visa, does make the subsequent deportation easier to do, you at least have a record of it.

That said, I agree that a wall is not an effective means to completely stop it. I am also realistic enough to understand that we are never going to have the number at zero. So the question boils down to a couple of questions:

1) What is an acceptable number of illegals (zero is not realistic and will never be achieved)?

2) What is the best way of turning illegal into legal immigrants? Is it too easy to reap the benefits of citizenship without actually being a citizen?

If I recall, the single largest number of illegals are due to expired work visas. Do we need to follow up with these people more regularly, work with them to extend their visas proactively, and then if their work visa has expired and there is no response, go after their employers?

Do we eliminate work visas and force employers to either hire domestically, or have someone go through everything required to be a full blown citizen?

The reason why the wall gets so much play is it is something tangible people can relate to regardless of the efficacy of it.

Going back to my original point, if we want to completely open the borders, I am all for it. There may be some increase in crime, and there will be some instability initially, but that time should mitigate that. I do think infrastructure near the border would be overwhelmed in the short term. The big threat I see is from terror organizations, but we already run the risk from them where we stand now.

Closing the border is also fine, but we need to invest in doing so. It will be expensive, and the improvement in quality of life for most of us will be negligible if not negative as we will be pulling dollars from other sectors. I am ok with that, but I realize most will not be.

I will admit my frustration is seeing inconsistency (not necessarily with you) from those that say since it's the law it should be enforced yet have no problem or minimal interest in other laws that are broken on a daily basis.

If you say either be smart (and better) about enforcing our laws on illegal immigration or just open up the borders and that's consistent with all of the unenforceable laws we have then I'm down with that.

It just makes zero sense to me for anyone to be in support of a border wall. It doesn't attack the root problem and is ineffective in doing what it's meant to do. We could build a southern border wall out of toothpicks for those that feel we need to something (anything!) along the border and it'd save us billions and be nearly as effective.

[molson]

It's not possible to think that enforcement of some criminal laws should be a priority over others?

That would be bad news for marijuana users in some states.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think we have somewhat of a problem in the sense of people coming here illegally, and likely always will given our prosperity, need for cheap labor, and proximity to those countries.

However, I do not feel people coming across illegally are causing a problem. This is a completely manufactured crisis by an administration pandering to its racist, xenophobic base. When the POTUS refers to them as rapists and murderers, and he assumes some of them are good people, that rhetoric makes it seem like a far worse problem than it is. It takes these illegals from largely invisible people working jobs most Americans wont do to villains who are going to rape your daughters and force your sons to inject black tar heroine. This is all done for political gain so Trump and Miller can rile up the base. You think it is a surprise every Mollie Tibbetts type killing gets used as an example of how evil the brown people are?

This country has survived illegal immigration for virtually its entire existence, and in many cases been propped up by it. To think this wall is anything other than a bargaining chip to appease his racist base is silly.

Illegal immigration has been a problem (my definition) for a while and prior to Trump. I don't think its a Trump thing. Reagan and his immigration bill/amesty, Bush trying to push through immigration reform, legalize the illegals & increase guest workers.

But what you say about Trump further inciting irrational fears is true, no question.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's me, except in the most literal sense. And suffice to say I don't at all consider myself the problem when it comes to this issue.

And you're probably driving in the left lane too!

I'm not sure why this is considered such a good point, since it is at best misleading. Birth rates have been quite flat since the early 70s; much flatter than, for example, they were prior to that point. They've been gradually lowering for the last several years, but only just this past year did they narrowly go below the mid-70s levels. There was an eventual rise then and it's just as reasonable to think that might happen again. Birth rate in the US is still higher than that in China, Canada, Japan, etc. and almost as high as the UK for example, though certainly some developed countries are higher. Overall birth rates worldwide are in decline and that's a good thing in many ways, so the idea of let's just take people from other nations is a really weird proposition IMO. The long-term view shows the US is doing much better than most of the world in sustaining birth rates. We're just fine on that front.

I disagree with you here. I want more legal immigrants (assuming security concerns are mitigated) - white, yellow, brown, black etc. Here's why:

1. Birthrates may have been stable for a while but we know there's not enough young population entering workforce to support the old population leaving (e.g. social security). And the trend is likely to continue downwards so why not nip it in the bud now
2. Being competitive with China is a major concern of mine. We need to bring in as much highly-educated talent, entrepreneurs, investors etc. as possible. Sure we can grow our own talent but I see great advantage in having the benefits of the "brain drain" from other countries
3. There are some professions that we have a shortage - medical doctors, nurses, AI technologists etc. Let's encourage that group to come (and re-certify if needed)

With the Hong Kong unrest, I've wondered if it would be wise to open the doors to HK populace to fast-pass immigrate to the US. Lots of talent (and money) there.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I disagree with you here. I want more legal immigrants.

The people you support politically don't. Even if the extent of that support, giving you the widest possible benefit of the doubt, is restricted solely to "build a big beautiful wall," the government's position on immigration is "lock them out."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Going back to my original point, if we want to completely open the borders, I am all for it. There may be some increase in crime, and there will be some instability initially, but that time should mitigate that. I do think infrastructure near the border would be overwhelmed in the short term. The big threat I see is from terror organizations, but we already run the risk from them where we stand now.

If you mean completely open the borders meaning allowing not just south of the border but everyone else all over the world to just come, stay, work (or not) and live here the rest of their lives ... no way.

Is this what you meant?

Below is a survey and the US comes out far ahead as the most desirable place to migrate to. I would argue its underestimated if we really open borders with no restraints to immigrate.


Which countries do migrants want to move to? | World Economic Forum

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The people you support politically don't. Even if the extent of that support, giving you the widest possible benefit of the doubt, is restricted solely to "build a big beautiful wall," the government's position on immigration is "lock them out."

To be clear - I do not support Trump politically. I did not vote for him and do not plan to vote for him. However, there are some policies that I clear cut support, there are some that are marginal, and there are some that I do not support.

With that preamble, I looked up where Trump is restricting legal immigration.

I'm not sure this is what you are referring to, if not please provide a link.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...gal-immigrants

PRESIDENT DONALD Trump's presidential proclamation that will deny visas to immigrants who cannot prove they will obtain health insurance or can cover medical costs could exclude two-thirds of future immigrants, a new analysis found.

The proclamation is the latest and perhaps most significant action taken by the Trump administration to reduce legal immigration and may prove to be more restrictive than a separate, recent policy targeting legal immigrants who use public benefits. It will particularly affect lower-income immigrants.

Released quietly by the White House Friday evening, the proclamation will require immigrants to prove they will either obtain health insurance within 30 days of entering the country or prove they are able to cover "reasonably foreseeable" medical costs. Those who do not meet the requirement will be denied visas. Immigrants will also be denied a visa if they use the Affordable Care Act's subsidies to obtain insurance.

The rule may bar some 65% of would-be green card holders, an analysis by the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute found. The policy will not apply to asylum-seekers or temporary visas.

It will be a big barrier for immigrants who do not have a job offer that will provide health insurance or are not joining a spouse already in the U.S. who has health insurance they could join, says Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute who conducted the analysis.

The health insurance system is difficult to navigate in a short period of time, Gelatt says, and individuals must make a certain amount of money to qualify for insurance through an ACA exchange without being eligible for subsidies.

The rule could create a de facto income test for immigrants and help achieve the Trump administration's long-term goal of shifting the legal immigration system to favor so-called merit-based immigration, rather than the immigration of those seeking to join family members who are already in the U.S.
:
:
The Trump administration has pushed for wholesale immigration reform aimed at decreasing family-based immigration and increasing merit-based immigration, but Congress has not acted on any such reform measures. Any bills aimed at reshuffling the legal immigration system would face almost impossible odds in the Democratic-controlled House.

I'm okay with the theme of "merit based immigration" and moving away from family-based immigration. I'm also okay with immigrants having to get health insurance but would say 30 days may be too soon vs 90 days.

The statement it may bar 65% of would-be green card holders puzzles me. It wouldn't be green card holders that got them due to getting a job. I assume it would be green card holders that are parents sponsored by child? The 65% seems too high for this so TBD opinion for now.

Bottom line - yes, it does look as if Trump wants to reduce family based legal immigration to merit-based. I honestly don't see any problems with that philosophy. I will agree that the execution may well be FUBAR.

FWIW, many of our western friends do the same. Yes, there are likely differences and the US version may be more discriminatory but other western countries are discriminatory also. I remember looking at Canada's point based system several years ago, and age was a key input IIRC because it nearly eliminated me from consideration.

Points-based immigration system - Wikipedia

A points-based immigration system is an immigration system where a noncitizen's eligibility to immigrate is (partly or wholly) determined by whether that noncitizen is able to score above a threshold number of points in a scoring system that might include such factors as education level, wealth, connection with the country, language fluency, existing job offer, or others.[1][2][3] Points-based immigration systems are sometimes also referred to as merit-based immigration systems,[4][5] Countries that use points-based immigration systems may have other pathways for potential immigrants (such as immediate family, refugees, etc.), so that meeting the points threshold is not necessary for all immigrants. They may also have additional criteria that points-based immigrants need to satisfy, such as no criminal record or no involvement with terrorist organizations. Some countries that use points-based immigration systems are the United Kingdom (see main article), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.[3][2][6] Canada and Australia are the two countries with the most experience with the points-based system, and are often used as the comparison points when judging whether a country's immigration system is points-based.[5][2][7]:17[8]

In the United States, President Donald Trump and his administration, as well as some Republicans, support the RAISE Act, which proposed legislation to steeply cut legal immigration to the United States. In addition to substantially reducing legal immigration to the United States, and dramatically reducing family-based immigration, the bill would also replace the current employment-based U.S. employment-based visa with a rigid points system.[17] Under the legislation, a maximum of 140,000 points-based immigrant visas would be issued per fiscal year, with spouses and minor children of the principal applicant being counted against the 140,000 cap.[17] The legislation would eliminate the current demand-driven, employer-led model, in which employment-based visas are directly responsive to the needs of the labor market, and would move to a model in which potential migrants would be primarily valued by human capital factors.[17] The points system proposed in the act would prioritize "individuals who are already U.S.-educated, trained in STEM fields, highly-compensated, English-fluent, and young" while disadvantaging "women, people who work in the informal economy (including those who do unpaid work), individuals with family ties to U.S. citizens but without formal education and employment history, middle-aged and older adults, and applicants from less-developed countries."[17]

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I will admit my frustration is seeing inconsistency (not necessarily with you) from those that say since it's the law it should be enforced yet have no problem or minimal interest in other laws that are broken on a daily basis.

I am one of those that say "its the law, if you don't like it, garner enough support and change it". I also believe you need to secure your borders (not calling out a terrorist threat). You are right that I don't have a lot or minimal interest in many other laws broken on a daily basis because there is scale, degree, prioritization etc. of some laws being broken.

Equating to your frustration, I am frustrated at how many people on this board focus on the brown people south of the border and don't think about all the other people that want to immigrate to the US legally and illegally. I know/believe the lack of focus/concern of those other yellow, black, brown people in Asia is not because you don't care, its just that its not been a central point of discussion ... same with all those other laws being broken for me.

With that said, I actually agree that tax evasion should be high up there in priority. We just don't factor it into the discussion because I don't think anyone disagrees and its not controversial enough. Don't think it needs a 100 fold increase in IRS, primarily more technologies (I've read of more AI playing a role here). Heck, with up to $400B, it'll pay for itself so yeah, lets do it.

[lungs]

A few unconnected thoughts on the immigration topic:

I see the 'pathway to citizenship' talked about often. While it's an important aspect of reform, I feel 'pathway to permanent residence'(aka green card, though they aren't green) doesn't get talked about enough. The complaints are about 'cutting in line' so to speak for the citizenship process, and I get that. For those that agree that deporting 12+ million people isn't an option, we don't need to have an immediate jump from completely undocumented to citizenship.

I've voiced my opposition to a wall because I believe it would be ineffective. I'll clarify a bit by saying I'm not in favor of having nothing to deter illegal crossings. I'd just rather take a 21st century approach through use of technology rather than an approach that didn't even really work in ancient times. Why not both? Because a wall is a damned stupid idea and there's not much that will convince me otherwise. What is the cost of a combined wall/technology upgrade versus tech only?

Guest workers will need protections. As a former employer, I saw too many of my fellow employers advocating for an almost indentured servitude guest worker program. I've seen some pretty piss poor treatment of workers in my day. Status quo allows exploitation and some employers want legalization with continued exploitation and no oversight.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To be clear - I do not support Trump politically. I did not vote for him and do not plan to vote for him. However, there are some policies that I clear cut support, there are some that are marginal, and there are some that I do not support.

The thing is, his policies on immigration are not severable. He's not building a wall to the exclusion of the other immigration policies he's pursuing.

To the extent you're boosting "build that wall," you're boosting the rest of it, whether you mean to or not.

I'm not sure this is what you are referring to, if not please provide a link.

1) Not my responsibility to do your research for you, bucko.

2) If you need to ask me to "provide a link," you've been sleeping through the last three years while chanting "build that wall!" They have not been shy about their desire to reduce all immigration, whether it's "ending chain immigration" (spoiler: that's what "build a better life" immigration IS; few immigrants in search of a better life for their families have the resources to bring their families with them from the jump); or "treat legal asylum seekers as lawbreaking border jumpers"; or "reducing the number of visas issued by 20%" or...

They've been out in the open about it, and a lot of it is fairly tacit white nationalism, to boot.

I'm okay with the theme of "merit based immigration" and moving away from family-based immigration. I'm also okay with immigrants having to get health insurance but would say 30 days may be too soon vs 90 days.

The problem with "merit-based immigration" being the base of your immigration policy is that that's fundamentally H1-B immigration. "You can come here if you have job skills that your employer will then use to more cheaply insource labor at the expense of Americans currently in those positions."

If you open the doors to people looking to build a better life, you're opening the doors to the kind of people who, you know, fucking built this country in the first place. If you replace that with "merit-based" immigration, what you're doing is allowing business to use immigration to fuck over Americans.

Which is, ostensibly, why you and those who also chant "build that wall" want the wall in the first place: resentment against immigrants and the idea that they're somehow cheating honest (white) Americans out of...whatever.

If you want an immigration system that works, benefits America, and doesn't accidentally encourage illegal immigration, don't close the door to people who are trying to build a better life. Open it wider, and fix the system so it doesn't take 20 years from application to admission. It shouldn't take so long to receive approval that minor children age into their majority and have to restart the process, forcing parents to choose between their dreams and their children.

But that's the system we have now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

I see the 'pathway to citizenship' talked about often. While it's an important aspect of reform, I feel 'pathway to permanent residence'(aka green card, though they aren't green) doesn't get talked about enough. The complaints are about 'cutting in line' so to speak for the citizenship process, and I get that. For those that agree that deporting 12+ million people isn't an option, we don't need to have an immediate jump from completely undocumented to citizenship.

IMO the argument is still the same. They would be 'cutting in line' for the green card that many people are already in-progress/waiting for going through the legal process.

Guest workers will need protections. As a former employer, I saw too many of my fellow employers advocating for an almost indentured servitude guest worker program. I've seen some pretty piss poor treatment of workers in my day. Status quo allows exploitation and some employers want legalization with continued exploitation and no oversight.

I agree with you. Not exactly the same but comparable. My first hand knowledge is regarding an asian restaurant that brought folks over and put them in terrible conditions.

[Edward64]

1) Not my responsibility to do your research for you, bucko.

I did do my research and provided the link for you to confirm. I didn't really know if what I found was what you were talking about. So I'll assume yes for now until told otherwise.

2) If you need to ask me to "provide a link," you've been sleeping through the last three years while chanting "build that wall!" They have not been shy about their desire to reduce all immigration, whether it's "ending chain immigration" (spoiler: that's what "build a better life" immigration IS; few immigrants in search of a better life for their families have the resources to bring their families with them from the jump); or "treat legal asylum seekers as lawbreaking border jumpers"; or "reducing the number of visas issued by 20%" or...

Oh, I take it back. "Reduce all immigration" was not in either of my links that I thought was pretty good.

Yup, you're going to need to provide a link for me and other to react to if we want to continue this discussion.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Yup, you're going to need to provide a link for me and other to react to if we want to continue this discussion.

lol no

Trump and Miller's desire to slash immigration in toto has been exhaustively reported on in the last three years, both in terms of specific policy proposals and actions actually taken.

I'm not holding your hand.

[GrantDawg]

That's a lot of stuff for a do-nothing congress only concentrating on impeachment to do.


Legislative Nerd AM Recap:
1) White House endorses bipartisan deal to rein in surprise medical bills
2) Negotiators unveil deal on major defense policy bill
3) Final USMCA agreement possible today as officials meet in Mexico City

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) December 10, 2019

[GrantDawg]

...and the President continues to gas-light us all. But, we are fine as long as the stock-market is up and he keeps the brown people out, right?

I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2019

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The problem with "merit-based immigration" being the base of your immigration policy is that that's fundamentally H1-B immigration. "You can come here if you have job skills that your employer will then use to more cheaply insource labor at the expense of Americans currently in those positions."

If you open the doors to people looking to build a better life, you're opening the doors to the kind of people who, you know, fucking built this country in the first place. If you replace that with "merit-based" immigration, what you're doing is allowing business to use immigration to fuck over Americans.

Which is, ostensibly, why you and those who also chant "build that wall" want the wall in the first place: resentment against immigrants and the idea that they're somehow cheating honest (white) Americans out of...whatever.

If you want an immigration system that works, benefits America, and doesn't accidentally encourage illegal immigration, don't close the door to people who are trying to build a better life. Open it wider, and fix the system so it doesn't take 20 years from application to admission. It shouldn't take so long to receive approval that minor children age into their majority and have to restart the process, forcing parents to choose between their dreams and their children.

But that's the system we have now.

Having gone through the H1B visa process myself, I know how difficult and arduous it is. I don't see it as equating it to increasing H1B. The link I posted above and highlighted below says its not. So until you provide a link that says otherwise there's not much more to talk about.

In the United States, President Donald Trump and his administration, as well as some Republicans, support the RAISE Act, which proposed legislation to steeply cut legal immigration to the United States. In addition to substantially reducing legal immigration to the United States, and dramatically reducing family-based immigration, the bill would also replace the current employment-based U.S. employment-based visa with a rigid points system.[17] Under the legislation, a maximum of 140,000 points-based immigrant visas would be issued per fiscal year, with spouses and minor children of the principal applicant being counted against the 140,000 cap.[17] The legislation would eliminate the current demand-driven, employer-led model, in which employment-based visas are directly responsive to the needs of the labor market, and would move to a model in which potential migrants would be primarily valued by human capital factors.[17] The points system proposed in the act would prioritize "individuals who are already U.S.-educated, trained in STEM fields, highly-compensated, English-fluent, and young" while disadvantaging "women, people who work in the informal economy (including those who do unpaid work), individuals with family ties to U.S. citizens but without formal education and employment history, middle-aged and older adults, and applicants from less-developed countries."[17]

[GrantDawg]

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

...and the President continues to gas-light us all. But, we are fine as long as the stock-market is up and he keeps the brown people out, right?

I don’t know what report current Director of the FBI Christopher Wray was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me. With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI, which is badly broken despite having some of the greatest men & women working there!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 10, 2019

"Current Director of the FBI"

Wonder if he's itching to fire another head of the FBI until he finds a Barr-like lackey.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you mean completely open the borders meaning allowing not just south of the border but everyone else all over the world to just come, stay, work (or not) and live here the rest of their lives ... no way.

Is this what you meant?

Below is a survey and the US comes out far ahead as the most desirable place to migrate to. I would argue its underestimated if we really open borders with no restraints to immigrate.


Which countries do migrants want to move to? | World Economic Forum

That is exactly what I meant. For a good part of our history we did exactly that because it was hard to secure our borders and we lacked the technology to do so.

What are the negatives of immigration, more people? That's a larger labor force, and one of the areas we need one is (un)skilled labor. We are going to have a dire shortage of wastewater operators in a few years because no one wants to work at a WWTP. It's a job that pays pretty good money and in most areas you can retire after 25 to 30 years. Welders are another dying breed. Get good at it and be willing to travel and that is a six figure job right there. That's not including other jobs that don't require skills, but need people willing to get their hands dirty.

Through much of our history, we have had a stream of inexpensive labor for industry. Chinese, Irish, Italians, Poles, Swedes, Germans, etc., and they were all reviled when they first got here. At the end of Blazing Saddles, they allow in the blacks and Chinese, but they drew the line at the Irish. Why did that resonate, because it happened. It showed the absurdity of the moment and shined a light on both sides of the aisle because most of us after accepting something or someone move the goal posts rather than change ourselves realizing the absurdity of our beliefs.

Again, would it be painful? Yes, but you can get rid of all the political football being played by completely opening things up. I understand that limiting immigration in theory allows us to better absorb the incoming groups with little disruption, however, I think it is better to have the issue completely in the forefront rather than where it is now. I also think we would have better dialogue than we do now if it impacted more people.

[albionmoonlight]

Seeing a lot more pro-Trump/anti-impeachment forwards on facebook today. I'm thinking that the WH/Russian Bots/Whomever decides when to flood the market with those have decided that now is the time to solidify the base.