Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

White Nationalists actually hate Conservatives (has to do with most White Nationalists also being socialists) and the reverse is also true (due to Conservatives not being racial collectivists by sheer virtue of ideology).

 

But sure, let's just throw out the idea of freedom of association and not even allow people to speak to each other.

 

Also, if the Democratic Party wasn't pro-mass immigration, White Nationalists would most likely vote Democrat because they actually agree with the majority of Democratic policy. They just hate mass immigration (and anti-white racial collectivism) to the point that they'll vote against their own principles. Even the boogieman Richard Spencer has said that he agrees with 80% of Bernie Sanders' platform.

 

I'm not scared of these people and I'm a Jew. They're not the ones who will put me in a re-education camp.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's rather hypocritical that a group of people descended from immigrants is against immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol saying white nationalists would be Democrats if not for the party’s position on immigration is like saying most Jews would be Nazis if not for the party’s position on ovens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 3:36 AM, Life said:

White Nationalists actually hate Conservatives (has to do with most White Nationalists also being socialists) and the reverse is also true (due to Conservatives not being racial collectivists by sheer virtue of ideology).

 

But sure, let's just throw out the idea of freedom of association and not even allow people to speak to each other.

 

Also, if the Democratic Party wasn't pro-mass immigration, White Nationalists would most likely vote Democrat because they actually agree with the majority of Democratic policy. They just hate mass immigration (and anti-white racial collectivism) to the point that they'll vote against their own principles. Even the boogieman Richard Spencer has said that he agrees with 80% of Bernie Sanders' platform.

There is actually some truth to this. I doubt many white nationalists would vote democrat but it is true that the typical conservative and the populists hijacking their parties generally don't get along. The hardcore Trump voter or populist voter in general has a very strong, perhaps almost fanatical hatred of politicians in general. They aren't voting for Trump because he's a Republican but because he's a populist. Their  view of the classical republican is just as bad as their view of the classical democrat. Its why they have such loathing for the Republicans that haven't yet sold their soul to Trump. Likewise the typical old, fiscally and god fearing Republicans are unlikely to respect Trump or the people who vote for him. They are a means to an end, a means to get the party into power no matter the cost. Its mostly a marriage of convenience for both parties involved. 

And yes, populist generally use the immigration boogieman to con people into voting against their own interest. You see it in Europe too where most populist voters are disappointed social democrat voters so convinced that immigrants are a threat to their economic positions that they don't mind voting for right wing parties that cut their social security just to see immigration adressed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "immigrants steal jobs/welfare/other opportunities 'natives' deserve (like college tuition grants)" argument, whenever I overhear someone bring that up IRL, I sheepishly back away instead of confronting them and proving them wrong.

It's not necessarily I want to back away from defending immigration, but rather, I am not armed with the empirical data to contest those against immigration. I know nothing of how large the various social programs are, and what percentage of their revenues are spent on immigrants. Nor do I know the quantity of taxes paid by immigrants. I cannot fight wrongful perceptions with only "good" perceptions, I need hard facts, hard truth to prove my point.

Politicians on the left seem to only address the immigration matter on the moral and humane rightfulness of letting people into this country, which is a good argument. But they don't use statistics (ideally accurate ones, bad ones are arguably worse than none) to counter the core complaint of "needy immigrants bankrupting the country and taking 'our' money". That pro-immigration politicians don't attempt to blunt that criticism, leaves them exposed to being branded "Lots of heart, but not enough brain". And it leaves me as I am, someone who has been cultivated with the ideal of a pluralistic society in them, but feeling as though the position they want to unflinchingly adhere to, has a glaring flaw in it.

 

Does anyone actually know where I might be able to find the empirical statistical information which could solidify my position? Ideally from a more centrist or nonpartisan source?

 

And just to make sure I'm not misunderstood:

Want to: Be able to defend immigration against those who think immigrants are a colossal drain on taxpayer dollars and social programs.

Problem: I don't know where to find information on government spending and income related to immigrants. Not knowing those statistics weakens my abilities to counter those opposing immigration. Pro-immigration politicians (insofar as "the news" covers them) never counter this argument with numbers. That does not help me, nor anyone else out there like me.

 

I hope this is clearly stated enough. I'm on edge after some unfortunately catastrophic mistakes on my part elsewhere.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2019 at 6:36 PM, Life said:

White Nationalists actually hate Conservatives (has to do with most White Nationalists also being socialists) and the reverse is also true (due to Conservatives not being racial collectivists by sheer virtue of ideology).

 

But sure, let's just throw out the idea of freedom of association and not even allow people to speak to each other.

 

Also, if the Democratic Party wasn't pro-mass immigration, White Nationalists would most likely vote Democrat because they actually agree with the majority of Democratic policy. They just hate mass immigration (and anti-white racial collectivism) to the point that they'll vote against their own principles. Even the boogieman Richard Spencer has said that he agrees with 80% of Bernie Sanders' platform.

 

I'm not scared of these people and I'm a Jew. They're not the ones who will put me in a re-education camp.

 

how hard do you laugh when writing this shit? lol

 

2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The "immigrants steal jobs/welfare/other opportunities 'natives' deserve (like college tuition grants)" argument, whenever I overhear someone bring that up IRL, I sheepishly back away instead of confronting them and proving them wrong.

It's not necessarily I want to back away from defending immigration, but rather, I am not armed with the empirical data to contest those against immigration. I know nothing of how large the various social programs are, and what percentage of their revenues are spent on immigrants. Nor do I know the quantity of taxes paid by immigrants. I cannot fight wrongful perceptions with only "good" perceptions, I need hard facts, hard truth to prove my point.

Politicians on the left seem to only address the immigration matter on the moral and humane rightfulness of letting people into this country, which is a good argument. But they don't use statistics (ideally accurate ones, bad ones are arguably worse than none) to counter the core complaint of "needy immigrants bankrupting the country and taking 'our' money". That pro-immigration politicians don't attempt to blunt that criticism, leaves them exposed to being branded "Lots of heart, but not enough brain". And it leaves me as I am, someone who has been cultivated with the ideal of a pluralistic society in them, but feeling as though the position they want to unflinchingly adhere to, has a glaring flaw in it.

 

Does anyone actually know where I might be able to find the empirical statistical information which could solidify my position? Ideally from a more centrist or nonpartisan source?

 

And just to make sure I'm not misunderstood:

Want to: Be able to defend immigration against those who think immigrants are a colossal drain on taxpayer dollars and social programs.

Problem: I don't know where to find information on government spending and income related to immigrants. Not knowing those statistics weakens my abilities to counter those opposing immigration. Pro-immigration politicians (insofar as "the news" covers them) never counter this argument with numbers. That does not help me, nor anyone else out there like me.

 

I hope this is clearly stated enough. I'm on edge after some unfortunately catastrophic mistakes on my part elsewhere.

0) first, get to know the immigrants: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/

1) the real "start" is a summary from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

2) after getting a general overview, you're better off asking specific questions and consulting good sources (pew research, published articles, fbi stats, etc). sources in the wikipedia page will likely present you with excellent landing pages to start from on a whole host of topics regarding immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The "immigrants steal jobs/welfare/other opportunities 'natives' deserve (like college tuition grants)" argument, whenever I overhear someone bring that up IRL, I sheepishly back away instead of confronting them and proving them wrong.

It's not necessarily I want to back away from defending immigration, but rather, I am not armed with the empirical data to contest those against immigration. I know nothing of how large the various social programs are, and what percentage of their revenues are spent on immigrants. Nor do I know the quantity of taxes paid by immigrants. I cannot fight wrongful perceptions with only "good" perceptions, I need hard facts, hard truth to prove my point.

 

And just to make sure I'm not misunderstood:

Want to: Be able to defend immigration against those who think immigrants are a colossal drain on taxpayer dollars and social programs.

Problem: I don't know where to find information on government spending and income related to immigrants. Not knowing those statistics weakens my abilities to counter those opposing immigration. Pro-immigration politicians (insofar as "the news" covers them) never counter this argument with numbers. That does not help me, nor anyone else out there like me.

 

I hope this is clearly stated enough. I'm on edge after some unfortunately catastrophic mistakes on my part elsewhere.

I'm almost like 90% sure that person is just a bigot/racist. At the end of the day, empirical data and numbers won't help you convince them it is a good choice  since they use that to deflect. It's just a stalling tactic. As someone who is at the pinnacle of being practical and pragmatic when at the end of the argument, it ends up boiling down to being human and having empathy. 

Let's say you make the argument that based off x number of money being spent on welfare programs only 15% goes to immigrants, 20% goes to them for scholarships, and they get employed at 30% of the jobs available on the market within a county. You could say they get less than a 1/3 of the resources in this country allocated to them. Then  based off the work they do, the taxes they pay on all their purchases, and skills they gain while here in school they turn around and deploy to the community in professions like the medical field, they contribute 20% to GDP. So they hurt us by 10%. Does the average consumer even feel this? Do their pay checks even reflect this? Does their purchasing power go down because of this? You could say no. They get services opened up to them provided they didn't come to school here and then leave this country afterwards (which a tiny portion of Asians do), the jobs they perform still put services and products on the market for purchase (provided we don't start discussing the quality of said things), and the welfare they use here consumes products here, which it turn keeps the money they spend still going back into the same system and not exiting it. 

Looking at it from that point of view strips it down to the argument being made that "well at least our people should come first". But I've met people and I haven't even looked into data published on how many people don't even put the effort into applying for these benefits. Yes. I'm basically saying their are lazy people who want scholarships given to them without even filling out the application for one. People who want welfare but don't go to the office to sign up. People who don't want "those" jobs but still whine that other people are doing them (which makes them look bad on top of them being unemployed).

Let me further illustrate this point by adding an actual real life example. As an American, I'm pretty sure I'm eligible for plenty of scholarships based off my income, ethnicity, grades, and etc. Do I apply for them? Not a single one since after turned 18. I've paid out of pocket for my school and still got my degree. (Btw I'm not one of those people who are upset my school isn't being paid for or who even wants it paid for by someone else) Are there people saying I could have gotten that money? Yeah. But I didn't apply for it. So why would they argue for me that the money should have went to me when I didn't even ask for it? I could list over 15 people I know who copied me and got their degrees. Sure it says we are lazy as hell lol. But how do you even calculate the % of people who are American, eligible, and would actually aquire the money to then subsequently spend on school, but don't even apply for those scholarships? In addition to those who did apply and fail to get it. 

The math and % for every situation quickly accumulates to otherwise debunk that immigrants coming here do more "harm" than good when it comes to looking at our economy and our resources. You can't calculate what "could" have been given to an American, but didn't and was given to an immigrant who then used it here to otherwise feed back into the system on top of adding what that immigrant "contributes" to the community to see if it justifies them even being here. They want to give you a super hard math problem they don't expect you to be able to solve so they don't have to tell you they are a bigot or that they don't like outsiders not like them moving in next door. 

So since it isn't a matter of resources being incorrectly allocated, it boils down to either them being against people who have a different culture from them or them thinking "it's every man for himself" except on a grander scale, it's every country for themselves (and their own citizens). 

I dunno how you are going to figure out which that person is (selfish or prejudice) but I'm pretty sure you aren't going convince them. Figuring out how to coexisting with that person knowing how they think is your next best step. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with your argument is simply that it is all conjecture. your estimations arise from thin air if they're unsourced. what interdimensional observer is asking for, consequently, is a factual framework to argue in favor of immigration.

the thing is, immigration is a nuanced subject. not all immigrants are the same and obviously not all immigration strategies are the same. for the united states, with the largest immigrant population in the world, the numbers tell us that immigration is a net positive--that's great for people like me who are pro-immigration. but, when you ask how certain immigrant populations are doing, you'll get very different stories. moreover, when you ask which cities/regions/states are actually able to support large influxes of immigrants, you'll get vastly different answers. this is why i think the best course of action is a general overview of the facts (read: average effects immigrants have on the country) and then much more research into a specific topic you might be interested in. how mexicans are doing in southern california is much different than how somalis are doing in minnesota.

immigration is not always a good thing. mexico, specifically tijuana, could not actually sustain the recent migrant caravan from central america. their president, more reasonably than ours at least, wants to find a way to settle as many as possible. as nations, mexico and the united states sympathize with asylum seekers (in general, at the moment the current american administration appears wholly xenophobic), but it's simply not always feasible. what hurts these people is the lack of real problem solving because we're busy arguing about things that don't matter, like whether or not immigrants should be let in in the first place.

on the topic of college, it's important to note that you might be lazy, but to me it sounds you're being extremely unfair to your peers and yourself. would you make the same arguments if you had to pay for primary school? (k-12.) if a 5th grader had to do extracurriculars to get themselves a sponsor to pay for school but didn't, are they lazy? the point i'm making is that college has rapidly become not a privilege for the elites, but a requirement for most skilled work. because it's a requirement, the onus, like primary school, like police, like firefighters, is on all of us (ie, the government) to fund education, not the individual. and, because of the expense, applying for one or two scholarships will only in rare cases be sufficient to pay for school; prospective students likely will have to apply to dozens. this is on top of school, applications for college, standardized tests, and outside stressors you aren't privy to. i reject your conclusion that your peers are lazy--instead i'd argue the state is putting too much of a burden on young people to pay for their futures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just Googled "immigration impact on economy," and I found some good articles by reputable authors/institutions.

4 myths about how immigrants affect the U.S. economy (PBS) Got a lot of links to other articles.
THE EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON THE UNITED STATES’ ECONOMY (UPenn) Lots of sources, numbers, graphs.
The Economic Benefits of Immigration (UC Berkeley)
The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration (CFR) Has a huge amount of sources.
THE POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION (FWD.US) Also got tons of links.

"The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration" article sums it up best in my opinion:
"The expenditures on border enforcement (more than 0.1 percent of GDP) are already greater than the fiscal benefits of reducing illegal immigration (less than 0.1 percent of GDP). This is not to say border and interior enforcement should be ignored. Existing legislative proposals also contain provisions to redirect funds toward expanding the electronic verification of employee eligibility and reassigning border patrol personnel to locations where their presence may be a greater deterrent to illegal entry. These or other reallocations of existing spending may be effective in reducing illegal immigration. Currently, U.S. employers, by virtue of asking workers for identification at the time of their hiring, can plausibly deny having knowingly hired illegal immigrants. A system of electronic verification would potentially eliminate plausible deniability, placing a greater burden on employers to screen out workers who are unauthorized for employment. But by any measure, halting illegal immigration is likely to be a net drain on the U.S. economy."

Personally, I do not care whether an immigrant comes here legally or illegally. If illegal entry is their only crime, I do not see a point in rooting them out and deporting them. If they come here illegally and are okay with being practically second class citizens, that is great for me as a first class citizen! Few Americans want the really shitty jobs that illegal immigrants do anyways, and having them come here helps lower the cost of goods and services that are low-skilled-labor intensive. Who does not want fresh cherry tomatoes for the stupid low price of $1.00 per box? They usually go for $3.00+ per box in regular stores, but dollar stores have a huge glut of them earlier in the tomato season and seems like they were trying to get rid of the huge excess of cherry tomato supply. I do not have concrete proof, but I strongly suspect a lot of our cherry tomatoes in California were picked by illegal immigrants, and I think that is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a documented immigrant.

Immigrants, documented or undocumented, do not qualify for most kinds of benefits, period. Medicare and social security are unavailable for documented immigrants until the immigrant has either been present in the US for 40 quarters (so 10 years) or has worked the equivalent of 40 quarters. Additionally most documented immigrants have minimum income requirements placed upon their immigration status (exceptions are asylum seekers and, I believe, lottery card winners). Not sure what the requirements are these days but in 2008 I had to prove I had access to income of at least $37,500/year in order to immigrate.

So, simply, benefits aren’t going to immigrants.

I did qualify for unemployment and FMLA but that was because I had paid directly into those programs through work. I’ve also been paying social security and Medicare taxes since I immigrated but I cannot take advantage of those. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Cons]:   "Immigrants steal good jobs from real Americans."

[Also Cons]:  "Immigrants are a drain on the welfare state" 

If it wasn't 100% clear that anti-immigrant politics is outgroup scapegoating + redirection of anger and frustration away from culpable parties, put those two statements together and consider they really sum up to:

"We don't believe that a menial laborer in our modern economy employed in a good American job can cover basic-costs-of-living and raise a family without dipping into welfare benefits."

Now who's fault is that; hmmm???

The politicians who haven't adjusted minimum wage laws to match the cost-of-living index for decades, and have allowed big business to increase profit margins at the expense of taxpayers by only covering a fraction of their own labor costs + shifting the remainder of the burden onto publicly funded anti-poverty programs?

The private entities buying their votes by means that would in any functional democracy be illegal bribery? (we call it 'lobbying')

The warpigs who keep taking all the money that should be going towards education and domestic services for a healthy, productive workforce and throwing it at military contractors + weapons manufacturers + never-ending for-profit wars?


Nope. Immigration from non-white countries. 

Its [they're] fault that Blue Collar Workers can't get good-paying jobs and are being crushed by bills and taxes--put their kids in cages. 

______


Consider also that this is the exact same divide-and-conquer strategy of keeping the working class divided on racial lines that corrupt businessmen and politicians in this country have been using for like 150 years now, to prevent workers of all ethnicities from realizing that they are being wronged by the same people (i.e. the corrupt businessmen and politicians) and have mutual interests in uniting against them. 

Political cartoons from the 1880s (i.e. peak period of mass Chinese Immigration to California and The West Coast)

Image result for chinese exclusion act cartoon

Image result for chinese exclusion act cartoon

^^^

(if you know anything about our labor laws from this time period + the legal battles around them, you know that this sentiment was being whipped up at a time when progressives reformers of the day were fighting the first generation of post-industrial revolution gazillionaires for things like--child labor bans. Fire escapes and machine guard-rails and such to prevent needless death by industrial accident. The right to strike. The right to form labor units. The right for industry workers to have union representatives negotiate with management on their behalf, and contractually stipulate fair working conditions + rates of pay)

...you know...all that stuff we freaked out and called 'socialism' in one century before embracing as an indispensable part of a well-regulated economic system in the next....

We're again in a period where there's intense popular dissatisfaction with the way we've structured our economy and stacked the deck against the average worker, and intense pushes against entrenched business interests for progressive reform.  

We're again in a a period where there's an intense push from leaders beholden to entrenched business interests to blame immigrants for all our problems + believe that as long as the beholden schmucks are attacking immigrants, they're helping us. 

...not a coincidence... 

They do this every time they're about to get their teeth kicked in by a fed-up working class. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Res said:

I’m a documented immigrant.

Immigrants, documented or undocumented, do not qualify for most kinds of benefits, period. Medicare and social security are unavailable for documented immigrants until the immigrant has either been present in the US for 40 quarters (so 10 years) or has worked the equivalent of 40 quarters. Additionally most documented immigrants have minimum income requirements placed upon their immigration status (exceptions are asylum seekers and, I believe, lottery card winners). Not sure what the requirements are these days but in 2008 I had to prove I had access to income of at least $37,500/year in order to immigrate.

So, simply, benefits aren’t going to immigrants.

I did qualify for unemployment and FMLA but that was because I had paid directly into those programs through work. I’ve also been paying social security and Medicare taxes since I immigrated but I cannot take advantage of those. 

 

Would like to note that a lot of student visas have explicit limits on work when people move here. I have a friend who couldn't make summer rent with a job outside the university because he was only allowed two outside-of-school jobs during his entire school career.

 

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

"OF COURSE Democrats are pro-mass immigration! More Minorities = more votes for their plantation of votes. They've tricked the Blacks into voting for them and now they're trying to add more brown people so that whites no longer have a voice! LBJ said it himself: I'll have those ****ers voting Democratic for 200 years".

Long overdue

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

Obama averaged more deportations in his office time compared to Trump. Democrats have consistently been open to ideas on border control if not voting directly in favour of them. I think that's all you really need to know about how this narrative about the Democrats and immigration holds up.

It's not really about the truth, it's about pushing the meter of what's normal to the right. Now Democrats are trying to compromise with the Republicans on perhaps not a wall, but funding to border control nonetheless...

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tryhard said:

Obama averaged more deportations in his office time compared to Trump. Democrats have consistently been open to ideas on border control if not voting directly in favour of them. I think that's all you really need to know about how this narrative about the Democrats and immigration holds up.

yeah ok

i was just making sure i wasn't crazy before i realized that life was posting in this thread again, so i probably am crazy but i'm definitely not misguided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Also are Democrats really pro-mass immigration or is mass immigration anything more than the "we're for rich white immigrants from the Nordic countries" view that Trump had that one time.......

I am not sure about all Democrats and people who lean left, but I am pro immigration. I hold a romanticized view of American exceptionalism. As the leader of the world, the least we can do for the shit we throw around the world is to open our borders, especially to the persecuted and poor, and even more especially so for those who have bled for us. I find it repulsive that many foreign translators who have risked their lives for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan are stuck behind bureaucratic bullshit and they have difficulty to move to the United States. A lot of them face real risk of persecution and death. Some of these people died for our country, and I think we are honor bound to call any foreigners who sacrificed for our country as fellow Americans and bestow them and their families citizenship if they want it.

150 million people world wide would like to migrate to the United States. While I am not sure if we can absorb that many people at once, I think we should at least try to accept any who are able to physically get to our borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, XRay said:

I am not sure about all Democrats and people who lean left, but I am pro immigration. I hold a romanticized view of American exceptionalism. As the leader of the world, the least we can do for the shit we throw around the world is to open our borders, especially to the persecuted and poor, and even more especially so for those who have bled for us. I find it repulsive that many foreign translators who have risked their lives for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan are stuck behind bureaucratic bullshit and they have difficulty to move to the United States. A lot of them face real risk of persecution and death. Some of these people died for our country, and I think we are honor bound to call any foreigners who sacrificed for our country as fellow Americans and bestow them and their families citizenship if they want it.

150 million people world wide would like to migrate to the United States. While I am not sure if we can absorb that many people at once, I think we should at least try to accept any who are able to physically get to our borders.

...Well at least you have the self awareness to throw "romanticized" in there... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Imagine needing a government watchdog report to tell you that taking screaming toddlers away from all family + emotional support and throwing them in Baby Jail causes mental trauma. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 9/2/2019 at 12:53 PM, Phoenix Wright said:

Part 1) the problem with your argument is simply that it is all conjecture. your estimations arise from thin air if they're unsourced. what interdimensional observer is asking for, consequently, is a factual framework to argue in favor of immigration.

the thing is, immigration is a nuanced subject. not all immigrants are the same and obviously not all immigration strategies are the same. for the united states, with the largest immigrant population in the world, the numbers tell us that immigration is a net positive--that's great for people like me who are pro-immigration. but, when you ask how certain immigrant populations are doing, you'll get very different stories. moreover, when you ask which cities/regions/states are actually able to support large influxes of immigrants, you'll get vastly different answers. this is why i think the best course of action is a general overview of the facts (read: average effects immigrants have on the country) and then much more research into a specific topic you might be interested in. how mexicans are doing in southern california is much different than how somalis are doing in minnesota.

immigration is not always a good thing. mexico, specifically tijuana, could not actually sustain the recent migrant caravan from central america. their president, more reasonably than ours at least, wants to find a way to settle as many as possible. as nations, mexico and the united states sympathize with asylum seekers (in general, at the moment the current american administration appears wholly xenophobic), but it's simply not always feasible. what hurts these people is the lack of real problem solving because we're busy arguing about things that don't matter, like whether or not immigrants should be let in in the first place.

Part 2) on the topic of college, it's important to note that you might be lazy, but to me it sounds you're being extremely unfair to your peers and yourself. would you make the same arguments if you had to pay for primary school? (k-12.) if a 5th grader had to do extracurriculars to get themselves a sponsor to pay for school but didn't, are they lazy? the point i'm making is that college has rapidly become not a privilege for the elites, but a requirement for most skilled work. because it's a requirement, the onus, like primary school, like police, like firefighters, is on all of us (ie, the government) to fund education, not the individual. and, because of the expense, applying for one or two scholarships will only in rare cases be sufficient to pay for school; prospective students likely will have to apply to dozens. this is on top of school, applications for college, standardized tests, and outside stressors you aren't privy to. i reject your conclusion that your peers are lazy--instead i'd argue the state is putting too much of a burden on young people to pay for their futures.

Part 1) but see, im making the point that it is useless to throw numbers at people who don't even care about the numbers and are simply using that as a reason to reject immigration because the truth is they are quite possibly prejudice against outsiders. It's not an individual's responsibility to educate others on how beneficial immigration can be or is, it falls to them to do that. But they know it's a super complex and nuance problem to solve and they don't have time to understand it all. Do you really think Observer is going to have time in a one on one session teaching another person about basic economic terminology and telling that person about their various sources of information (which they won't go look up or believe) and how at the end of the day, it is beneficial for them to come? I'm very doubtful.

 

Part 2) sorry buddy, but college is not a requirement. I disagree there. The perspective I'm looking at this from is that nobody is entitled to that so called "skilled" work. There is plenty of work to do and money to make unskilled. It might not be favorable and it might even make life a struggle to keep up with (we can talk about inflation and cost living separately and figure out who to point the finger at) but that doesn't mean it's the government's job or responsibility to grant you opportunities to get your dream job. If you want a life of luxury or a lifestyle different from the poor and unskilled, be prepared to make sacrifices for it. In America that naive notion that you can have it your way is what is making us weak in my opinion. Your duty and obligation in life is to be independent. The rest is what you make out of it. This means putting a roof over your own head and stop mooching of the parents. Pay bills and put bacon on the table. I know I could think a little harder and try to put this in a less crude way and make it sound more delicate, but that isn't my style. You want that fancy job sitting in the a/c making good money only using your head (and your hands too i guess. In a dexterous way)? You want a lifestyle where you can eat fancy food, have a piano in your foyer, take vacations around the world? Well buddy, that sounds like a personal problem. Sounds like you "want" something, not "need" something. That "skilled" stuff your talking about that colleges and universities open the door for you, is optional. Its a privilege. A luxury. Not a requirement. You can live working unskilled labor. You just aren't going to be happy or being doing a bunch fun stuff getting the chance to have different experiences in life. Nobody is entitled to those dream jobs or careers they keep reaching for that they have no business aiming for. People need to learn to be more practical. If you want doors opened up for you, then find a way to open them without making others open them for you. It's called hard work, determination, ambition, and being self sufficient. It use to be at least. I dunno what this new generation calls it. By the way, I know how I said all this sounds like I'm aiming it directly at you, but i meant it in general to any individual. Just saying. I'm not aiming at you personally. That is my opinion regarding higher education and what not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Part 2) sorry buddy, but college is not a requirement. I disagree there. The perspective I'm looking at this from is that nobody is entitled to that so called "skilled" work. There is plenty of work to do and money to make unskilled.

Being an unskilled worker isn't going to mean much when your job is replaced by a robot in the future. People are going to need at least trade skills. Perhaps we should have the foresight to prepare the mass populace and encourage learning a profession before the inevitable happens.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Interdimensional Observer @Tediz64 @Phoenix Wright

See...Here's the thing...

We use to have an economy where you could graduate from high school. Go straight into union work or low skilled menial labor. Make minimum wage. And buy a house + pay your bills + raise some kids on that salary, without government handouts or a life of poverty.

Over the past 40 years we've stopped adjusting minimum wage to cost-of-living. Let insurance carriers and credit lenders and mortgage bankers run amok with predatory business models.  And allowed big business to create this economy where if you're making minimum wage in low skilled menial labor: its just expected now that you can't pay your bills and raise a family without government assistance. Cost-of-living is too high and the jobs don't pay enough; public assistance and government welfare has to pick up the slack.

This is the hallmark of a fundamentally rigged and broken economy, where lawmakers have not been responsive to the needs of their people and have structured the rules of the game around the interests of those who wine-and-dine their party leaders and fund their lavish lifestyles with their bribes "donations."

_______


The immigrant is blamed for this, by the culpable politicians, and said to be the reason why Americans in low skilled menial labor are suffering economically.

The culpable politicians attack immigrants, make laws against them, and use the power of federal 'law enforcement' to brutalize them.

The culpable politicians continue to block living wage laws and let predatory business practices run amok, and in so doing continue to fuck low skilled menial labor.

And the low-skilled menial laborers continue to vote for the culpable politicians who keep fucking them, as though they are champions of their best interests, because their prejudices have been exploited and they have been made to believe that the culpable politicians are helping them by brutalizing immigrants.

Thats the gameUnderstand this, and you'll understand everything that they're doing right now. 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

Millennials Have Higher College Costs

It’s no secret that the cost of college has been rising. A GOBankingRates analysis found that the annual cost of a four-year public university has soared more than 3,700% between 1964 when the youngest boomers were born, and 2015. So when those boomers entered college at age 18 in 1982, the average annual tuition at a public school in current dollars was $1,031, and the average cost of a private college was $4,639. When the oldest boomers were in college in 1964, the average annual cost of a public school was just $243, and the average annual cost of a private school was $1,088.

^Source

Details like this are ignored in favor of turning regular working folks against each other.

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/21/us/harvard-to-increase-charges-for-tuition-and-board-in-83.html

According to the above, Harvard's tuition, room and board was $10,540 and they announced they would increase it to $12,100

If we're to believe data data using the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index, that initial cost of $10,540 before the increase and adjusted for inflation would be $27,4xx while after the increase it would be $31,4xx. Harvard's cost of tuition, room and board today is $67,580, possibly higher

Median cost of rent in 1980 was $308, in 1990 it was $600 and in 2017 it is apparently $1,492

Minimum wages have been $3.10, $3.85, $7.25 in 1980, 1990 and Today respectively.

Today, you'd average $1,261.50 per month or $1,160 per month if you assume 40 hours of work a week and strictly 4 weeks in the month. You're not even making aforementioned $1,492. Today, the rent cost is 118% of what you're making monthly at the minimum wage and that's using the average. My rent is $1.2k in Austin Texas for those finding that $1,492 to be BS or something.

In 1990, you'd average $669.90 per month or $616 per month if you assume 40 hours of work a week and strictly 4 weeks in the month. You barely make it past the aforementioned $600. In 1990, the rent cost is 89.5% of what you're making monthly at the minimum wage and that's using the average.

In 1980, you'd average $539.40 per month or $496 per month if you assume 40 hours of work a week and strictly 4 weeks in the month. You're not too far off from making twice the cost of rent on average. In 1980, the rent cost is 55.6% of what you're making monthly at the minimum wage and that's using the average.

These calculations were done with the intent of favoring the right-wing's talking points against the income inequality issue that's being highlighted today. I hope this illustrates how heavily skewed people's buying power is today compared to what it was in the 80s.

 

On to a different subject...

Trump: I'm taking $60 Million+ Dollars allocated for Kentucky to fund my wall!

McConnel: I blame the damn democrats!

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...