POTUS election (non emotional issues)

Quote: AZDuffman

The problem with calling it a "wall" it it makes it seem like you will build a small fence and leave.

I think the problem with calling it a "wall" is you are not the Chinese trying to keep out Mongol invaders. These are people that once they get here look like tens of millions of other people, they go to work, and often they want to retire back in Latin America (if there children will let them leave).

Don't misunderstand me! I think we had to build the wall in urban San Diego. It was as much to protect the illegal immigrants as to enforce immigration law. The situation with thousands of people gathering at the soccer field and making a run for it at the same time every night, and people trying to run across the interstate was intolerable.

By the mid-1980s, an estimated 50 percent of all migration from Mexico into the United States was coming through the city limits of Tijuana, and about 80 percent of that was going to the soccer field. The migrants who escaped getting caught — and more than half did, according to estimates — often ran into robbers. Thieves liked the brushy canyons, too. Men were shot and sometimes killed, women were raped.



But the consequences of the wall are far from ideal. Studies have shown that the heightened security measures don't reduce the numbers of people who get in, but what the security measures do is make them think twice about going back. So what used to be a circulating group of mostly male labor, has turned into a permanent fixed group of underground illegal immigrants, who are probably more likely to be women than men.

Quote: TheCesspit

Seems odd for the small government brigade to be suggesting increasing taxes and lower the effectiveness of the free market, anyways.

Republicans aren't even paying lip service to small government or free markets any more. Their core values are bigotry and white supremacy, and for once they have a leader willing to say so openly.

They say sunlight is the best disinfectant. We shall see.

Quote:

The issue, which Trump does bring up in his own way, is the problem of immigration into the US... people want a source of cheap labour, and free trade.

The problem is there is no legal path to immigration for 90% of the people who want to immigrate, or even for the people who'd like to hire immigrants. And instead of loosening restrictions, they double down on blind enforcement, even though it produces results 100% opposite to what they want.

Quote:

The problem is there is no legal path to immigration for 90% of the people who want to immigrate, or even for the people who'd like to hire immigrants. And instead of loosening restrictions, they double down on blind enforcement, even though it produces results 100% opposite to what they want.

The first is only a problem for those that want to immigrate, who by definition are not US citizens, and the US has no requirement or obligation to those people for them to legally immigrate into the States. Just because a person wants to live in country, there's no requirement for that country to make it easy or possible to legally live there. You can believe in open borders and free movement of people. but the government of that country does not have to agree with you.

The second is a problem: if there are folks that want to hire from abroad, and can not, especially if they can not find the right people in the country, then a change is needed. If it's merely a case of driving down wages (which it has been in Canada in some cases), there is again no requirement for a country to have to make people immigrate, and some may argue if there's a unemployment, then looking within is a reasonable approach.

Quote: TheCesspit

The first is only a problem for those that want to immigrate, who by definition are not US citizens, and the US has no requirement or obligation to those people for them to legally immigrate into the States.

No, the first is a big problem because there's obviously more demand for labor than can be met by natives and current restricted immigration levels. otherwise you'd have a bunch of unemployed "illegal" immigrants, rather than prospering families.

Quote:

The second is a problem: if there are folks that want to hire from abroad, and can not, especially if they can not find the right people in the country, then a change is needed. If it's merely a case of driving down wages (which it has been in Canada in some cases), there is again no requirement for a country to have to make people immigrate, and some may argue if there's a unemployment, then looking within is a reasonable approach.

Wages will be driven lower if you rely on undocumented labor, because employers can afford to pay them even less, as they have no real legal recourse. So that's an argument for opening up the spigot, not tightening it shut.

There's also the elephant in the room that is the social security deficit. It could be solved, or at least ameliorated, by letting in more workers who will pay into the system. But again, that's not likely as long as you restrict immigration.

Once there is a free movement of goods across borders, free movement of people should follow, otherwise things get really out of whack. Some industries simply cannot go off shore to take advantage of cheaper labor costs. Hell, even in the Great Recession, you did not see native US citizens fighting for jobs with undocumented workers.

There's also the fact that governments have a lousy records in restricting the supply of anything for which there is a big demand. It didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with drugs, and it didn't work with labor. And the fact that xenophobia is a lousy base for policy.

Quote: Nareed

No, the first is a big problem because there's obviously more demand for labor than can be met by natives and current restricted immigration levels. otherwise you'd have a bunch of unemployed "illegal" immigrants, rather than prospering families.

You've just described the second problem: the local economy needing more people. The desire of people to live elsewhere for whatever reason is not a problem the government needs to solve.

Quote:

Wages will be driven lower if you rely on undocumented labor, because employers can afford to pay them even less, as they have no real legal recourse. So that's an argument for opening up the spigot, not tightening it shut.

There's also the elephant in the room that is the social security deficit. It could be solved, or at least ameliorated, by letting in more workers who will pay into the system. But again, that's not likely as long as you restrict immigration.

Once there is a free movement of goods across borders, free movement of people should follow, otherwise things get really out of whack. Some industries simply cannot go off shore to take advantage of cheaper labor costs. Hell, even in the Great Recession, you did not see native US citizens fighting for jobs with undocumented workers.

Free movement goods pretty much requires the free movement of people... it's a central provision to the EU as well, and one of the fall outs of the Brexit vote.

Quote:

There's also the fact that governments have a lousy records in restricting the supply of anything for which there is a big demand. It didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with drugs, and it didn't work with labor. And the fact that xenophobia is a lousy base for policy.

Sure, I am not saying they should restrict immigration, I'm merely saying that those outside the country wanting to get in are not a problem for the government.

Quote: TheCesspit

Sure, I am not saying they should restrict immigration, I'm merely saying that those outside the country wanting to get in are not a problem for the government.

Well, of course the US government cannot accommodate all the people in the world that want to move here.

Consider that over 5 million children under age 5 die of easily preventable simple, affordable interventions. Using a simple and low ratio of 3 family members for every child that dies, is 20 million people per year who might want to immigrate to the USA where the most basic of needs (not dying) could easily be met. That's 200 million people per decade, which is a substantial portion of US population of 330 million.

Quote: Key facts of child mortality

Nearly 9 million children under the age of five die every year, according to 2007 figures.
Around 70% of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Leading causes of death in under-five children are pneumonia, diarrhoea and health problems during the first month of life.
Over one third of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition.
Children in developing countries are ten times more likely to die before the age of five than children in developed countries.

The number of potential immigrants will always be higher than anything we can even conceive of accommodating.

But a big percentage of our population is related to immigration. Immigrants in the United States and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 81 million people, or 26 percent of the overall U.S. population.

In 2014, Mexican immigrants accounted for approximately 28 percent of the 42.4 million foreign born in the United States, making them by far the largest immigrant group in the country. India, closely trailed by China (including Hong Kong but not Taiwan), and the Philippines were the next largest countries of origin, accounting for about 5 percent each.

Quote: TheCesspit

Sure, I am not saying they should restrict immigration, I'm merely saying that those outside the country wanting to get in are not a problem for the government.

Well, of course the US government cannot accommodate all the people in the world that want to move here.

Consider that over 5 million children under age 5 die of easily preventable simple, affordable interventions. Using a simple and low ratio of 3 family members for every child that dies, is 20 million people per year who might want to immigrate to the USA where the most basic of needs (not dying) could easily be met. That's 200 million people per decade, which is a substantial portion of US population of 330 million.

But even 5 million immigrants a year would be overwhelming change in historical numbers.

Quote: Key facts of child mortality

Nearly 9 million children under the age of five die every year, according to 2007 figures.
Around 70% of these early child deaths are due to conditions that could be prevented or treated with access to simple, affordable interventions.
Leading causes of death in under-five children are pneumonia, diarrhoea and health problems during the first month of life.
Over one third of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition.
Children in developing countries are ten times more likely to die before the age of five than children in developed countries.

The number of potential immigrants will always be higher than anything we can even conceive of accommodating.

But a big percentage of our population is related to immigration. Immigrants in the United States and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 81 million people, or 26 percent of the overall U.S. population.

In 2014, Mexican immigrants accounted for approximately 28 percent of the 42.4 million foreign born in the United States, making them by far the largest immigrant group in the country. India, closely trailed by China (including Hong Kong but not Taiwan), and the Philippines were the next largest countries of origin, accounting for about 5 percent each.

Quote: Pacomartin

Well, of course the US government cannot accommodate all the people in the world that want to move here.

How about all those who can afford to move? Not the same thing.

But there's a lot more involved here. Not everyone wants to move to the US and stay there the rest of their lives. Some may want to work seasonally, as was the case with the vast majority of Mexican laborers before border enforcement trapped them on the US side of the fence. Others may want to work for a while and then return home. Even in the XIX Century, it was common for Europeans to move to the US for a few decades, make a pile of money working and saving, and then they'd retire to their home countries.

Another immigration mode is when a family member, usually a father or older brother, goes to another country to work, and sends money back home. This tends to be temporary, too. But current laws favor letting the whole family in permanently, if they have relatives in the US, rather than allowing one or two members in for a few years.

The whole edifice of immigration law is screwed up all possible ways.

Remember when Obama hilariously said
over and over he would have the most
transparent presidency in history, then
went on the have the most secretive in
history?

"After early promises to be the most transparent administration in history, this has been one of the most secretive. And in certain ways, one of the most elusive." https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html


Remember when Obama pledged to have the
most transparent transition in history, then went
on to have the most secretive?

"Pledging the 'most open and transparent transition in history',Team Obama vowed to reveal details of transition meetings with groups on its heavily promoted change web site. Dates and organizations represented at official meetings in the transition headquarters or agency offices were supposed to be posted on the web site for easy public access.. However, there is no list of meetings on the site even though many have been held with power brokers and probably special interest groups."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/12/obama-breaks-transparency-promise/

Trump is already having the most transparent.
He has cameras trained on the elevators at
Trump Tower so we can see who goes up and
who comes down. They make announcements
on almost a daily basis, Trump releases tweets
all the time. Obama's regime was about as
transparent as the Third Reich.