Deportation and other Immigration issues

[sunmaster14]

So you'll argue that spending money feeding school children needs to be seriously looked at to see if it makes sense fiscally and is effective, but you'll support a massive boonoggle wall because "well, Obama did it too".

You're complicated

You're fallaciously conflating a couple of different principles here.

First, the expansion or contraction of the school lunch program is about #50 on the list of policy issues I care about, and I only care about the first 20 or so. I was just pointing out some things the "look at how evil Republicans are being again" people were missing.

Second, in addition to being a waste of money, it's possible the school lunch program is actually hurting kids by (a) narrowing their options to foods they don't like and won't eat; and (b) raising the cost of food locally through indiscriminate and wasteful food buying. So wasting money isn't the only issue involved, or even the primary one.

Third, I actually believe there is a real upside to the wall being built because I believe it will be effective at significantly the reducing number of successful illegal border crossings, and as an ancillary benefit, curbing the incentive for people even to try to do something so dangerous.

Fourth, the passion with which people oppose the wall betrays their hidden motivation (and thus dishonesty). If opponents really thought the wall would be ineffective, then the only negative would be the waste of money and construction resources. But who the hell gets so passionate about wasting $20B of construction resources in an $18T economy? We just wasted $200B in the aftermath of the 2009 stimulus package, and nobody even noticed.

I submit that the reason why there is such passion among wall opponents is that they actually think a wall will be effective. Is there anybody here who can sincerely deny that?

 

[Minoosh]

I want the border to work like my front door. I want to let in only those that we choose to let in.

The border is not your front door. It's 2,000 miles long. That matters.

And if I had my druthers, I would let in a lot of people from all over the world. Not just low-skilled people from next door, whose very first act, by the way, after setting foot on US soil, is to break the law.

I could call them entrepreneurs willing to take risks and cut through red tape for the sake of a better future. But that would be a stereotype, as is the image of hordes of unskilled criminal peasants invading America.

But arguing that illegal immigration is a financial boon is dishonest.

I don't make that argument.

Even if it were a boon, don't you think we could do better if we got to pick and choose which immigrants to take?

It depends on what you mean by "do better." IMO having a strong positive relationship with our neighbor has value.

I'd rather have a medical doctor from India than an illiterate peasant from Mexico.

That's a false dichotomy and a bit on the stereotyped side.

For all intents and purposes, there are an infinite number of high skilled, law-abiding, Western values-admiring people who would jump at the chance to emigrate to the US.

And we are not letting them come, even temporarily. Any hint of expanding any immigration category stirs up enough vitriol - enough hatred - to kill any such proposal. Trump in particular has spoken against visas for the highly qualified.

Donald Trump changes stance on H-1B visas for highly skilled immigrants — three times in one day
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-flip-flops-skilled-worker-visas-times-day-article-1.2553190

... those kids streaming over the border consume a higher than average share of educational resources because, for the most part, they don't speak English, their parents don't speak English, and both they and their parents were poorly educated to being with.

Educating immigrant children cultivates a fluently bilingual workforce. Extra dollars spent recirculate as wages for American workers who pay taxes.

How was that patronizing? I mean what I wrote literally.

You made a blanket putdown of my rationality, followed by "it's really quite simple" and "it's quite explicit actually." That's condescending.

I'm skeptical of that number. I'll look at the source for that later this evening.

Here's where I got it:

5 immigration myths debunked
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/immigration-myths/

That's quite a non sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur in the context of evaluating who's mooching and who isn't.

 

[Minoosh]

Fun fact: The sheet metal erected to create a "wall" through Nogales, Ariz., was earlier used as landing mats for helicopters in the Vietnam War.

ETA:

If the wall would be ineffective, then I don't see why you should care.

I can't tell what this sentence means. Physical barriers can slow people down but a wall may not be the best way to do that. A few years ago I read an informative news article that cited the concerns of border agents but the link no longer works.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

So, what's there to stop Mexico deciding to pull a Crimea in Texas or California (Ironic, I know), especially when demographics show that white people will be a minority in the US within 30 years*?

*Which will be a nice wee funfest in its own right.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I submit that the reason why there is such passion among wall opponents is that they actually think a wall will be effective. Is there anybody here who can sincerely deny that?

I can't speak for anyone else. As for myself;

Yes. I deny that.

Sincerely.

 

[twinstead]

I submit that the reason why there is such passion among wall opponents is that they actually think a wall will be effective. Is there anybody here who can sincerely deny that?

I can't deny there are people who think a wall will be effective. There's also plenty of people who are passionate that tax-payer funded drug tests will reduce welfare fraud.

What I also can't deny is a culture, on both sides of the aisle, that fosters band-aid solutions based on theatrics instead of actual viable solutions. You complain all the time about the irrational Liberals and their emotional arguments yet sign on no questions asked when Conservatives do it.

Like I said. Complicated

 

[sunmaster14]

I can't speak for anyone else. As for myself;

Yes. I deny that.

Sincerely.

If the wall will be ineffective at stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, then why are opponents so passionate about stopping its construction? Are they really so upset about the federal government wasting $20B?

 

[sunmaster14]

I can't deny there are people who think a wall will be effective. There's also plenty of people who are passionate that tax-payer funded drug tests will reduce welfare fraud.

There are? I can't even see a rationale for that. I thought people just didn't want to give money to people who used illicit drugs because they figured some of that money would go to buying more illicit drugs.

What I also can't deny is a culture, on both sides of the aisle, that fosters band-aid solutions based on theatrics instead of actual viable solutions. You complain all the time about the irrational Liberals and their emotional arguments yet sign on no questions asked when Conservatives do it.

Like I said. Complicated

You really think I've signed on "no questions asked?" Despite the fact that I have argued in favor of a wall, in great detail, on this forum many times? I've drawn an analogy to the Israeli security fence (the so-called apartheid wall) many times as well. One of the main arguments against it by its detractors was that it would be too costly and ineffective. Well, guess what? They were completely wrong.

A border wall would represent a trivial economic burden, and it would reduce the flow of illegal immigrants to a trickle. It would actually save lives because it would discourage would be immigrants from making the dangerous trek to the border and put the human smugglers out of business. Furthermore, it would make it easier to grant amnesty to those illegal immigrants already here because the moral hazard concern (i.e. that amnesty would simply encourage more illegal immigration) would be mooted. The economic and social burden of assimilating hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants per year would be largely eliminated, and the ancillary crime resulting from drug and human smuggling would probably be reduced as well. Finally, the threat from terrorist elements making their way into the US undetected would be reduced.

I think I've asked and answered a lot of questions for myself. If there are questions you think I haven't asked (or haven't answered), then go ahead and ask them.

 

[twinstead]

I think I've asked and answered a lot of questions for myself. If there are questions you think I haven't asked (or haven't answered), then go ahead and ask them.

Question 1: exactly what kind of wall are you talking about?

 

[sunmaster14]

Question 1: exactly what kind of wall are you talking about?

I would model it after the Israeli security fence, which is a high concrete wall in some areas of high population density, but mostly just two fences separated by a no-go zone with a bunch of electronic monitoring equipment. Whatever is practical. I realize that Trump has called for a 35 foot high concrete wall, and he wants to make it beautiful and whatnot, but I consider that to be the usual campaign hyperbole.

I really believe the problem is that there are a lot of vested interests who really don't want to stem illegal border crossings. There is probably a fairly large industry in the US that feeds off of illegal immigration, whether they're businesses who need cheap labor, rich families who need cheap labor, immigration lawyers who need the work, or government employees who want to protect their jobs tracking down illegals or prosecuting immigration cases.

Once again, it is a problem of concentrated benefits and diffused costs. The costs of illegal immigration manifest as higher taxes, less services, overcrowded schools, more crime, and higher unemployment. It's hard for people to see where those costs are coming from. The people who benefit from illegal immigration know precisely where those benefits are coming from though, and therefore are more motivated to preserve those benefits.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

The problem with "the wall" is that you think you can have the Great Wall of China's size and the manpower to guard it as though it were the Theodosian Walls.

 

[Belz...]

But he said it would be a beautiful wall.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Jobs that are only low-paying because they're dominated by illegal immigrants or desperate legal immigrants.

Agreed.

My issue with workplace enforcement is not that it won't work. It's that I don't care if it works. I'm not worried about Mexicans stealing jobs.

I'm not either.

I am worried about them depressing wages.

I am also worried about them being abused because they do not feel like they can turn to authorities.

I am also worried about them being demonized by politicians when the real problem is the employers, not the workers.

The employers who give money to the politicians to keep demonizing their workers so that they know they can't turn to authorities. This is a vicious cycle that does not benefit American tax payers, American's looking for work, American workers, or the immigrants. It benefits the politicians and the employers.

 

[quadraginta]

If the wall will be ineffective at stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, then why are opponents so passionate about stopping its construction? Are they really so upset about the federal government wasting $20B?

I don't know.

I suppose you'll have to ask them.

 

[sunmaster14]

I don't know.

I suppose you'll have to ask them.

As I suspected, it doesn't seem like you have any justification for your claim (which was to deny my claim).

 

[quadraginta]

I can't speak for anyone else. As for myself;

Yes. I deny that.

Sincerely.

If the wall will be ineffective at stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, then why are opponents so passionate about stopping its construction? Are they really so upset about the federal government wasting $20B?

As I suspected, it doesn't seem like you have any justification for your claim (which was to deny my claim).

You seem to be having trouble keeping up with who you are asking about what.

Why do you want me to speak for other people about beliefs or claims you seem to think they have?

I never suggested those were beliefs or claims I have.

I think I was quite clear about that.

MY claim was that I am not passionate in my opposition to a wall because I believe it would be effective.

My justification for that claim is that it is myself I am referring to. Who better to know? What other justification do I need?

 

[sunmaster14]

You seem to be having trouble keeping up with who you are asking about what.

Why do you want me to speak for other people about beliefs or claims you seem to think they have?

I never suggested those were beliefs or claims I have.

I think I was quite clear about that.

MY claim was that I am not passionate in my opposition to a wall because I believe it would be effective.

My justification for that claim is that it is myself I am referring to. Who better to know? What other justification do I need?

So you sincerely deny things even when you have no justification for such denial, whatsoever? I don't do that. It's good to know that you do, however. It will aid me a bit in sifting the wheat from the chaff on the forum.

 

[quadraginta]

So you sincerely deny things even when you have no justification for such denial, whatsoever? I don't do that. It's good to know that you do, however. It will aid me a bit in sifting the wheat from the chaff on the forum.

Apparently you remain unclear about what I am denying.

Since the concept is so simple and has been so carefully and succinctly presented I have to think this is willful on your part.

I'm not particularly surprised by that, though.

Continue on in your imaginary world where you berate people for beliefs which you create for them. I'm sure you find it it very comforting and validating.

 

[sunmaster14]

Apparently you remain unclear about what I am denying.

Since the concept is so simple and has been so carefully and succinctly presented I have to think this is willful on your part.

I'm not particularly surprised by that, though.

Continue on in your imaginary world where you berate people for beliefs which you create for them. I'm sure you find it it very comforting and validating.

This is what my claim was:

"I submit that the reason why there is such passion among wall opponents is that they actually think a wall will be effective."


Then I asked:

"Is there anybody here who can sincerely deny that?"

Presumably, if you can sincerely deny the reason I gave for why there is such passion among wall opponents, then you must know of an alternative reason driving their passion. If there is no passion at all, then my claim is moot (and therefore pointless to deny). If there is passion, then there must be at least one reason for that passion. By denying my claim, you are implicitly claiming that believing the wall will be effective is not such a reason, or at least not one of the primary reasons. To deny it sincerely, I think you would have to provide an alternative primary reason, or at least explain how worries about it being too effective couldn't possibly be a reason. If you don't want to give such explanations, then just say so. If you haven't even formulated such explanations to begin with, then your denial was not sincere.

 

[twinstead]

I would model it after the Israeli security fence, which is a high concrete wall in some areas of high population density, but mostly just two fences separated by a no-go zone with a bunch of electronic monitoring equipment. Whatever is practical. I realize that Trump has called for a 35 foot high concrete wall, and he wants to make it beautiful and whatnot, but I consider that to be the usual campaign hyperbole.

I really believe the problem is that there are a lot of vested interests who really don't want to stem illegal border crossings. There is probably a fairly large industry in the US that feeds off of illegal immigration, whether they're businesses who need cheap labor, rich families who need cheap labor, immigration lawyers who need the work, or government employees who want to protect their jobs tracking down illegals or prosecuting immigration cases.

Once again, it is a problem of concentrated benefits and diffused costs. The costs of illegal immigration manifest as higher taxes, less services, overcrowded schools, more crime, and higher unemployment. It's hard for people to see where those costs are coming from. The people who benefit from illegal immigration know precisely where those benefits are coming from though, and therefore are more motivated to preserve those benefits.

I'm cynical. I don't trust Trump or your proposed benefits of the wall. I'm more apt to lean towards this article's take on the situation.

I could be wrong. I'm prepared for that.