Orphans at our door

[Soxbadger]

Immigration is great to fill needs. We should have a policy that matches employment needs with immigrants. We don't have an employment problem in general with a U6 of over 12%. I am very opposed to an immigration policy that results in native workers losing jobs to immigrants. That does not help the country as a whole.

 

You have a right to believe what you want, you just have to recognize that your belief is not supported by the majority of economists. And some native citizens will lose their jobs to harder working cheaper labor, that is the nature of capitalism.

 

If you are not a fan of that, perhaps socialism, communism or some other form of economics would be more to your liking.

[StrangeSox]

No you don't. Most are going to be working jobs where they wouldn't pay any taxes anyway. They'd get that money back, and a lot more, under our current tax code. And that is long before we get into social services provided.

If they're on a payroll with a fake ssn they are already paying taxes plus all sorts of local taxes e.g. sales gas property

[StrangeSox]

You really think they would ever be denied benefits? Never happen. This current crop of non-producers is just here for Uncle Sugar and to act as an anchor to bring over their extended families. We can't find them to send the kids back, but once the kids are let in, I am sure they will somehow manage to find each other.

good lord

 

[Soxbadger]

It really doesnt matter, this argument is about opinion. Either you believe in free market capitalism or you dont.

 

If you do believe then you have to concede immigration restriction is bad.

[southsider2k5]

You have a right to believe what you want, you just have to recognize that your belief is not supported by the majority of economists. And some native citizens will lose their jobs to harder working cheaper labor, that is the nature of capitalism.

 

If you are not a fan of that, perhaps socialism, communism or some other form of economics would be more to your liking.

 

I supposed that means you are also in favor of the abolitionism of 40 hour work weeks, overtime, social security, mandatory unemployment, mandatory health care, safety standards, pollution standards, taxes, minimum wage and any other of those anti-capitalistic things?

[StrangeSox]

You have a right to believe what you want, you just have to recognize that your belief is not supported by the majority of economists. And some native citizens will lose their jobs to harder working cheaper labor, that is the nature of capitalism.

 

If you are not a fan of that, perhaps socialism, communism or some other form of economics would be more to your liking.

you don't have to be a capitalist pig to support open borders, comrade.

 

[Soxbadger]

I supposed that means you are also in favor of the abolitionism of 40 hour work weeks, overtime, social security, mandatory unemployment, mandatory health care, safety standards, pollution standards, taxes, minimum wage and any other of those anti-capitalistic things?

 

Some of those things have nothing to do with capitalism. Ill comment on those that do. 40 hours a week, your choice, your life. Overtime, employer decision. Safety standards, thats why we have lawyers for negligence. Pollution standards, same as before, you pollute, expect to get sued for damages. Minimum wage, you should have the right to work at any price you want.

 

Taxes of course are part of capitalism, they are thoroughly discussed in Wealth of Nations.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seeing this issue through the lense of a single 8 year old kid at your doorstep lends humanity, but it doesn't change the larger picture whatsoever. Fact is, you cannot just open the borders if you expect this country to continue to thrive.

 

It pains me that we feel the need to send military assets all over the globe, often for causes only loosely (if at all) connected to protecting American interests... but we cannot secure the plumbing of our own southern border. We spent over a TRILLION dollars on the Iraq debacle, but we cannot find $100M to set up the infrastructure we need on the border, and cannot put our military to it's most important use - protecting our nation from direct incursion.

 

There are two ways to secure the border - real walls or virtual walls. You really need a combination, most often the latter because it is cheaper and has fewer nasty side effects. It will cost lots of money, but nothing compared to some of these foreign engagements. Securing the border has to be one of the three pillars of any policy.

 

Second pillar, make any changes necessary to the legal immigration system that is focused on economy and jobs. Break down people at skill levels coming in, determine level of job needs by industry, and set up quotas. Randomize source countries - no specific lists for specific other countries. That then determines how many people at what skill levels and areas can come in, and you have a lottery or a waiting list.

 

Third, you have to deal with who is already here that arrived illegally. Shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from illegally is impractical, that can only be reserved for those committing serious crimes. The rest, you need to set up a temporary visa program, with steps in it to eventually - after a very long time - gain citizenship. Lots of things you can do to make this work well, via military or government work and private industry together. Some call this amnesty - I call it reality.

 

The fourth item isn't really a core policy piece, but needs to be addressed - what do you do with the kids who are already here illegally with no one to care for them? This one is very sticky, but I think you need to not think of a single solution, but instead many. For countries of origin where they can be ascertained, you send them back - this is a much smaller group, so it is practical to do so. For countries who refuse American ships and planes and buses with these kids, or where countries cannot be determined, you work with as many private social services entities you can, and place as many as you can. By the time you do all the above, you should be down to a small number to go into state systems.

 

None of this is changed by the presence of these kids, except to further emphasize the same exact needs we already had. I hurt for these kids, and I fully disagree with some peoples' characterization that they are just trying to get that awesome welfare money. Preposterous. They are escaping hell, hoping for something better, and the ones old enough to work will work for it (most of them anyway - just like most already-Americans). But again, nothing changes the needs that already existed.

 

 

[Balta1701]

We spent over a TRILLION dollars on the Iraq debacle, but we cannot find $100M to set up the infrastructure we need on the border, and cannot put our military to it's most important use - protecting our nation from direct incursion.

You realize that in the last 7 years we've spent more than $100 billion on immigration enforcement and border security? Like, literally 1000 times what you said the amount we don't have available has already been spent.

[Jenksismyhero]

Seeing this issue through the lense of a single 8 year old kid at your doorstep lends humanity, but it doesn't change the larger picture whatsoever. Fact is, you cannot just open the borders if you expect this country to continue to thrive.

 

It pains me that we feel the need to send military assets all over the globe, often for causes only loosely (if at all) connected to protecting American interests... but we cannot secure the plumbing of our own southern border. We spent over a TRILLION dollars on the Iraq debacle, but we cannot find $100M to set up the infrastructure we need on the border, and cannot put our military to it's most important use - protecting our nation from direct incursion.

 

There are two ways to secure the border - real walls or virtual walls. You really need a combination, most often the latter because it is cheaper and has fewer nasty side effects. It will cost lots of money, but nothing compared to some of these foreign engagements. Securing the border has to be one of the three pillars of any policy.

 

Second pillar, make any changes necessary to the legal immigration system that is focused on economy and jobs. Break down people at skill levels coming in, determine level of job needs by industry, and set up quotas. Randomize source countries - no specific lists for specific other countries. That then determines how many people at what skill levels and areas can come in, and you have a lottery or a waiting list.

 

Third, you have to deal with who is already here that arrived illegally. Shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from illegally is impractical, that can only be reserved for those committing serious crimes. The rest, you need to set up a temporary visa program, with steps in it to eventually - after a very long time - gain citizenship. Lots of things you can do to make this work well, via military or government work and private industry together. Some call this amnesty - I call it reality.

 

The fourth item isn't really a core policy piece, but needs to be addressed - what do you do with the kids who are already here illegally with no one to care for them? This one is very sticky, but I think you need to not think of a single solution, but instead many. For countries of origin where they can be ascertained, you send them back - this is a much smaller group, so it is practical to do so. For countries who refuse American ships and planes and buses with these kids, or where countries cannot be determined, you work with as many private social services entities you can, and place as many as you can. By the time you do all the above, you should be down to a small number to go into state systems.

 

None of this is changed by the presence of these kids, except to further emphasize the same exact needs we already had. I hurt for these kids, and I fully disagree with some peoples' characterization that they are just trying to get that awesome welfare money. Preposterous. They are escaping hell, hoping for something better, and the ones old enough to work will work for it (most of them anyway - just like most already-Americans). But again, nothing changes the needs that already existed.

 

Come on. If they were just looking for a place to escape to, there are other countries they could go to. But they come here because they (1) will be accepted and probably won't be sent back and (2) will get benefits (medical, food, shelter) that they probably won't get elsewhere.

 

The recent influx of people that started this thread are coming from central american countries, not just mexico. They could head south if they wanted to. But again, they don't, because of what's available here.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[ptatc]

Some of those things have nothing to do with capitalism. Ill comment on those that do. 40 hours a week, your choice, your life. Overtime, employer decision. Safety standards, thats why we have lawyers for negligence. Pollution standards, same as before, you pollute, expect to get sued for damages. Minimum wage, you should have the right to work at any price you want.

 

Taxes of course are part of capitalism, they are thoroughly discussed in Wealth of Nations.

None of these still answer the problem of the under 14 year old group that started the conversation. These will not be part of your scenario.

 

The economy needs the migrant workers for the farms and factories for the lower wages that most Americans wouldn't live on. There's no doubt about it.

 

However, it goes back to the same discussion about the "foundation" of immigration you've spoken about. It's sounds like you've read and understand the history of immigration in the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. If so, you know about what a crime ridden areas were where immigrants gathered together to live. It dramatically increased crime rates, murder was so rampant that pauper graves were made on public islands because the government couldn't find enough room for them.

We've made alot of strides in the standard of living since then and if you open the borders again with no control history shows that crimes will dramatically increase in areas where immigrants gathers.

[Soxbadger]

None of these still answer the problem of the under 14 year old group that started the conversation. These will not be part of your scenario.

 

The economy needs the migrant workers for the farms and factories for the lower wages that most Americans wouldn't live on. There's no doubt about it.

 

However, it goes back to the same discussion about the "foundation" of immigration you've spoken about. It's sounds like you've read and understand the history of immigration in the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. If so, you know about what a crime ridden areas were where immigrants gathered together to live. It dramatically increased crime rates, murder was so rampant that pauper graves were made on public islands because the government couldn't find enough room for them.

We've made alot of strides in the standard of living since then and if you open the borders again with no control history shows that crimes will dramatically increase in areas where immigrants gathers.

 

Ptatc,

 

The presumption is that a family wouldnt send their child alone to the US if they could also come with the child. There is no way to guarantee it, but that would be the hope.

 

As for crimes are where immigrants gather, I believe that is because immigrants are generally poorer and therefore they are likely to be in places where crime rates are already high. Research from back then is inconclusive because there are a tremendous number of factors that go into whether someone is prosecuted or not:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831353/

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You realize that in the last 7 years we've spent more than $100 billion on immigration enforcement and border security? Like, literally 1000 times what you said the amount we don't have available has already been spent.

 

Well first of all, I'd like to know more about exactly what we spend it on than I do. Second, at $15B per year or so (based on your information), that seems like a number too low to me as a percentage of our budget for something as key as immigration and border security. It also changes nothing of what I said.

 

Come on. If they were just looking for a place to escape to, there are other countries they could go to. But they come here because they (1) will be accepted and probably won't be sent back and (2) will get benefits (medical, food, shelter) that they probably won't get elsewhere.

 

The recent influx of people that started this thread are coming from central american countries, not just mexico. They could head south if they wanted to. But again, they don't, because of what's available here.

 

Of course it is what is available here. It just isn't what you are thinking. People who leave a central american country to go to some other central or south american country are just going to another disaster. Here they are safer, there is more economic opportunity, and if they do go to jail it is a whole different world.

 

Very few of these immigrants are getting welfare checks anyway. Not sure what makes you think they are.

 

What's hilarious about all this is, I took something pretty close to the current GOP position on this topic... and I STILL have people trying to make these people out to be something cartoonishly evil with no basis in reality.

 

[Balta1701]

Well first of all, I'd like to know more about exactly what we spend it on than I do. Second, at $15B per year or so (based on your information), that seems like a number too low to me as a percentage of our budget for something as key as immigration and border security. It also changes nothing of what I said.

It averages out to about $15 billion a year, it's going up at much faster than the rate of inflation. Was about $10 billion a year late in the Bush term and is closing in on $20 depending on what spending bills pass.

 

You may also note that massively increasing border spending has seemingly had very little impact on this conversation, as the exact same conversation literally was had on this page in 2007.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well first of all, I'd like to know more about exactly what we spend it on than I do. Second, at $15B per year or so (based on your information), that seems like a number too low to me as a percentage of our budget for something as key as immigration and border security. It also changes nothing of what I said.

 

 

 

Of course it is what is available here. It just isn't what you are thinking. People who leave a central american country to go to some other central or south american country are just going to another disaster. Here they are safer, there is more economic opportunity, and if they do go to jail it is a whole different world.

 

Very few of these immigrants are getting welfare checks anyway. Not sure what makes you think they are.

 

What's hilarious about all this is, I took something pretty close to the current GOP position on this topic... and I STILL have people trying to make these people out to be something cartoonishly evil with no basis in reality.

 

Well they're not getting "checks," but they're certainly utilizing government services that they are, generally speaking, not paying for, or not paying their share of. This is especially true if they have children with citizenship here (education, medical plans, etc).

 

I'm not saying your position is outlandish, I actually agree with most of it. I'm just saying there is a reason they're choosing the US and it's not just to escape they're home life. There's something to be gained here economically. More than just an opportunity.

[Jenksismyhero]

It averages out to about $15 billion a year, it's going up at much faster than the rate of inflation. Was about $10 billion a year late in the Bush term and is closing in on $20 depending on what spending bills pass.

 

You may also note that massively increasing border spending has seemingly had very little impact on this conversation, as the exact same conversation literally was had on this page in 2007.

 

Not sure that's really a fair way to look at it when they're not being told to keep people out, they're being told to look the other way. Nevertheless, border security has always been half-assed anyway. Can't really expect to control the border if you don't control the whole border.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure that's really a fair way to look at it when they're not being told to keep people out, they're being told to look the other way. Nevertheless, border security has always been half-assed anyway. Can't really expect to control the border if you don't control the whole border.

That's something I was going to get at. The spending isn't being done at a level that would truly close down the highways on the southern border. You'll never stop it entirely of course, people will find a way, but you can sure as heck dramatically slow it down.

 

[Soxbadger]

Not sure that's really a fair way to look at it when they're not being told to keep people out, they're being told to look the other way. Nevertheless, border security has always been half-assed anyway. Can't really expect to control the border if you don't control the whole border.

 

Really nothing you can do effectively to keep people out, unless you go to such extreme measures that its impossible for any of us to leave as well.

 

Unless we starting executing people, the reward will always be greater than the risk.

[Texsox]

I stopped by a local shelter run by a group of Churches. You have never seen desperate like this. The stories I heard from volunteers are that many or most of these people didn't want to leave their homes but were fleeing violence and poverty. It is a literal life or death struggle.

[NorthSideSox72]

Really nothing you can do effectively to keep people out, unless you go to such extreme measures that its impossible for any of us to leave as well.

 

Unless we starting executing people, the reward will always be greater than the risk.

What makes you think the bolded is true?

 

[southsider2k5]

It averages out to about $15 billion a year, it's going up at much faster than the rate of inflation. Was about $10 billion a year late in the Bush term and is closing in on $20 depending on what spending bills pass.

 

You may also note that massively increasing border spending has seemingly had very little impact on this conversation, as the exact same conversation literally was had on this page in 2007.

 

The conversation should always revolve around cutting off the incentives for illegal immigration to the US. Solve the root problem, and the rest falls into place.

[Balta1701]

The conversation should always revolve around cutting off the incentives for illegal immigration to the US. Solve the root problem, and the rest falls into place.

And the only way that's going to happen is if there is a legal way for employers to satisfy the demand for that low-wage work force.

[southsider2k5]

And the only way that's going to happen is if there is a legal way for employers to satisfy the demand for that low-wage work force.

 

Which goes back to coming up with an intelligent system of matching actual labor demand to immigration.

[NorthSideSox72]

Here is something to consider too...

 

The US-Mexico border is about 1900 miles long. You want a short term solution until something better comes up? We have brought some tens of thousands of US troops back form the Middle East in the last few years, many of them active military. Put together squads of 4, one for each 5 mile section. Control units for every 50 with another 4-ish guys, and vehicles of whatever sort is necessary for the terrain. Drones and aircraft to support. That's about 3000 soldiers, including support, give or take. Small portion of the active duty guys who have come back. And they would be added to the border patrol units that are already there, but whom are overwhelmed.

 

Throw people at it for now. Do something more later. You already have these guys/gals on government rolls anyway, and already have the equipment. Use it. Heck, you'd even be helping some local economies having those guys around anyway. And combining with border patrol, you're looking at saturating to more than a person per mile of border.

 

[StrangeSox]

Can we legally have active duty military patrolling the border and operating on US soil? Honest question.