Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

274 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      111
    • Maybe
      74
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      111
    • Indifferent
      43


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Whilst making promises to the Arabs, France and Britain decided to give themselves Syria-Lebanon, and Transjordan-Iraq + Palestine, and concurrently promising a vague "national homeland" (they intentionally never said "nation-state") to Zionist Jews. I think Britain controlled part of Yemen for a time b/c it was a good stopping point en route to India. And Afghanistan, which is really more Central Asia but gets lumped in with the Middle East from time to time, I'm aware is somewhat a buffer state agreed to by Russia and Britain to keep Russia from getting too close to British India. 

A Middle East professor I once had, if you had to get a quick answer no lecture from them on the question, said they'd blame the British when it comes to who originally started the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To be fair, they did recently publish a book on the world history of the Balfour Declaration.

I pretty much agree with the idea of blaming the British if you need a quick go to answer but it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

It's important to remember that the Jews and Arabs did some pretty awful shit to each other prior to Milchemet Ha'atzmaut (Israeli War of Independance) but since then, the sheer passivity of Israel is actually rather shocking.

 

My position on it is very simple. We conquered the land, we don't owe the Palestinians shit and we've already paid our pound of flesh (second Shakespearean reference in 5 posts). As I said earlier, in this part of the world, might makes right.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to break the flow of current discussions and interrupt but can someone please link me or tell me how I can watch the 2nd (July) debate. For the life of me, I spent an earnest 19+ minutes. I phrased it "July Dem debate", "2nd democratic debate", then I tried "full democratic debate", "full July democratic debate", and after still not finding anything going up to three pages on each of those searches I got to searching "where is July debate video?", "How to see 2nd democratic debate", and so forth. That fact that I came here is just me throwing in the towel. Like holy shit, why can't I find a 2 hour video. I even used YouTube search engine with filters toggling on duration greater than 20 minutes and tried using words like detroit, Wednesday, and what not since this debate was held differently than the June debate.

 

Did something happen at the debate that they pulled it from the internet? 

To anyone helping me out with this, no links to highlights, no opinion pieces, no take aways, or anything other than the full video itself so I can come to my own interpretations of what was said. I don't want other people's perception on it. 

(Sorry if I sound cranky. It's 3am and I haven't slept plus I smash my thumb a little bit ago)

 

Also @Dr. Tarrasque you planning on attending the 3rd debate? It's in Houston. Isn't your city like an hour away?

Edited by Tediz64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Life said:

That line is meant to be ironic because Marc Antony didn't think of Caesar as an evil man. Even out of context this would assume that Koch left a bad legacy but was still a good man with those deeds now forgotten.

You should really reread that entire monologue again because you horribly misused that line here.

I know how the quote is used in that piece. It still came to mind because of how true it is of him if it's not mean to be Ironic because the man and his brother are truly just a pieces of shit. Long story short their wealth and ideology starts with their dad who built polluting oil pipelines for Joseph Stalin in the 1930s and supported segregation and white supremacist groups. The brothers have continued and did everything in their power to disguise their intent to do away with environmental legislation for their own profit as their libertarian values and funding whatever groups sought to do reduce the power of the government like the current Tea Party Republicans that are pretty much in it to cash in on the corruption the Koch brothers themselves started.

10 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

 

Also @Dr. Tarrasque you planning on attending the 3rd debate? It's in Houston. Isn't your city like an hour away?

3 hour drive. And no, the previous 2 debates have been a joke enough as is. I don't see value in physically attending a 3rd debate when the previous 2 did next to nothing to change my views on these candidates. I'm just glad they're starting to drop and still hoping for Beto to take on (and hopefully beat) Cornyn in the Senate.

Share this post


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

3 hour drive. And no, the previous 2 debates have been a joke enough as is. I don't see value in physically attending a 3rd debate when the previous 2 did next to nothing to change my views on these candidates. I'm just glad they're starting to drop and still hoping for Beto to take on (and hopefully beat) Cornyn in the Senate.

Has he announced a Senate campaign as opposed to president? Oh yeah Cornyn's seat is going this year. 

Share this post


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

Has he announced a Senate campaign as opposed to president? Oh yeah Cornyn's seat is going this year. 

Beto hasn't yet. He foolishly keeps trying to "restart" his presidential campaign while Dems around him are suggesting that he unseats Cornyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2019 at 5:20 AM, Life said:

My position on it is very simple. We conquered the land, we don't owe the Palestinians shit and we've already paid our pound of flesh (second Shakespearean reference in 5 posts). As I said earlier, in this part of the world, might makes right.

Okay. But the Palestinians don't owe the Israelis anything either, and might may make right but it doesn't grant legitimacy. If your argument boils down to having stolen the land by force and that the losing party can just go rot away then why exactly should the losing party ever stop fighting? If taking the land by force is the rightful way of doing things then that's the only way they'd get their land back and ''we don't owe them shit'' doesn't give them a single incentive to ever lay down arms. 

And its not just about the Palestinians either. If your justification for seizing land is simply that you had the power to do so then that's also a fair justification for other countries. Maybe a country stronger than Israel will decide that them being stronger than Israel gives them the right to seize the land by force. Maybe Russia thinks being stronger than Poland gives them the right to destroy Poland a third time, maybe Japan would really like to take Korea back once it restores its army and perhaps France will think its amusing to conquer the smaller Belgium. Especially in an era were wacky demagogues are seizing power we really shouldn't foster this kind of behavior when it comes to international relations. 

If your position ever becomes common we will be back to the times where war is the norm. The world became a much better place when we abandoned that mindset after the world wars and I'd rather not return to those days within my lifetime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Okay. But the Palestinians don't owe the Israelis anything either, and might may make right but it doesn't grant legitimacy. If your argument boils down to having stolen the land by force and that the losing party can just go rot away then why exactly should the losing party ever stop fighting? If taking the land by force is the rightful way of doing things then that's the only way they'd get their land back and ''we don't owe them shit'' doesn't give them a single incentive to ever lay down arms. 

And its not just about the Palestinians either. If your justification for seizing land is simply that you had the power to do so then that's also a fair justification for other countries. Maybe a country stronger than Israel will decide that them being stronger than Israel gives them the right to seize the land by force. Maybe Russia thinks being stronger than Poland gives them the right to destroy Poland a third time, maybe Japan would really like to take Korea back once it restores its army and perhaps France will think its amusing to conquer the smaller Belgium. Especially in an era were wacky demagogues are seizing power we really shouldn't foster this kind of behavior when it comes to international relations. 

If your position ever becomes common we will be back to the times where war is the norm. The world became a much better place when we abandoned that mindset after the world wars and I'd rather not return to those days within my lifetime. 

You're right. It doesn't. That's why we should push for peace on our terms or raze it to the ground if no peace can be realistically  achieved. As Golda Meir once said, "there will only be peace when the Palestinians learn to love their own children more than hating Jews". Rashida Tlaib confirmed it; her ideological position is more important than blood. It sounds awful but as I said above, Western morality doesn't exactly apply to lands that are run by theocracies from the 15th century and a fractured democracy circa 19th century.

What makes it more frustrating is that we are willing to give up land that we won in defensive wars where we were invaded first for peace. We want two things: recognition that Israel is going to exist and Jerusalem (I personally would be happy to give up the second). Since we don't get either, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place while tying our own hands behind our backs.

Western morality is so bourgeois and naive sometimes.

Hell, we even end up doing this: https://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-bans-extreme-right-gopstein-and-marzel-from-election-race/?fbclid=IwAR2tgBjgwSlKsXkz1DL2Mj7WzXCIRMZnDs9dqyOyNUp6zVWyTd2riOynkRY

Yeah, our Supreme Court actually banned a party from running for the Knesset on the grounds that they are the spiritual successors of Kahane and would actually create an apartheid state.

Edited by Life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoooooooooooooooo.  Latest round of primary polling  has Biden all the way down at 19%, with Bernie and Warren tied at 20%

Image may contain: text

Two weak debate performances + a string of gaffs and unforced errors on the campaign trail, and that frontrunner lead is gone

Its a race now. Game on guys. (I'm rootin' for Warren) 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow is the last day to qualify for the 3rd debate. Looks like it'll now be just 10 debaters, which means one night, everyone with a chance of winning able to cut off and criticize the others.

 

The Monmouth pollster did admit though that the poll leaned towards the younger side, which works against Biden and his strength with the older electorate.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'm curious--why warren?

She's pretty close to where I am on most policies.

And she's an actual policy wonk who identifies problems + gets into the weeds on substantive proposals; not some bumper-sticker sloganeer resting upon shallow talking points and applause lines.   

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:

i'm curious--why warren?

EDIT: Misread.

For most people I know who support her, she's basically Bernie with clearer and broader policies. She's my #2 after Bernie, but even I can acknowledge she's better than Bernie at addressing a handful of issues at a time. Bernie seems to pick one talking point for a month, and then beat it into the ground before moving onto the next one.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol @ the narrative that Biden is somehow losing

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primaries/democratic/national/

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/28/biden-leads-polls-1476649

Just because one poll puts him even with Warren/Sanders means jack, it's an outlier

Also this is a primary and is determined by delegates who do you think is going to win the South???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Biden is still favored to win. I don't know how it'll go (and I can't vote it in either), but Biden leads double digits and is in a good position I would say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...