Let's take a look at several key issues - the economy, the stock market, crime, job creation and the border

[Shrink726]

There is insufficient data to make that assertion.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Yep, but there is bipartisan agreement to continuously use deficit (stimulus?) spending to avoid decreasing federal spending or increasing federal taxation.

Well that's one thing I like about Trump's platform: he has a clear commitment to new taxes. 100% tariff on all Chinese goods, would be a substantial tax. But he can't fool the voters, they know China can work around such a tariff within 4 years. Just around the time American manufacturing (and primary production) brings consumer prices back down, there will be foreign competitors (Korea, Taiwan, Germany, even Australia) undermining the purpose of tariffs. They will have to be hit too. So we're looking at Donald II Trump trying to win election on the back of inflation which can't be blamed on anyone but Donald Trump. "Tariffs worked, so let's have MORE TARIFFS."

The only good number Trump's successor would have to run on, is employment numbers.

Financiers invented the world free market, and they've done very well from it. Their attitude to a new tariff regime will be "**** you and **** the mule you rode in on."

 

[Mach]

I never said that, because I don’t believe that. Selective (merit based?) legal immigration should be increased to allow steady, but controlled, population growth.
Yep, but there is bipartisan agreement to continuously use deficit (stimulus?) spending to avoid decreasing federal spending or increasing federal taxation.

Sorry I get overzealous in responses.

Yes, government spending helps drive our economy...intentionally slowing our economy (when it's not specifically to slow it from a bubble or because it's running too hot), seems counter-productive.
I'd like to see us try MMT the way we tried your libertarian philosophy during the Clinton/Greenspan era (that ultimately led to collapse). Quietly pay off 1/5th of the U.S. debt by (fiat), and see if it works out OK.
Have 2 backup-plans to mitigate harm in the event it's net-negative. at least we'd know!

Governments/economy are strange, it's not like household debt, it's perpetual, and when we spend in growing our economy and infrastructure and education and health of our nation, it pays dividends to us. Let's invest in us, instead of in hate and the rich...

 

[ttwtt78640]

You missed the first reason, which is that the status quo is a humanitarian problem that should be addressed. They are here and in the shadows, taken advantage of, they cannot all be cost-effectively deported, they are working, and should be paying taxes (many are), etc. They would boost our economic output, and it would be the right thing to do if it's coupled with whatever you think Republicans want on border security (to prevent the issue from building again).

The solution to ‘undocumented’ immigration is to enact an eVerify mandate, coupled with changes to the federal income tax code to allow IRS to serve as the primary enforcement mechanism.

Remember that presidents change, and if you think only R presidents fix it, and then D presidents open the border (which is absurd and a lie anyway), then why not plug it entirely so both R/D "close the border" to your liking?
We know why, it's all about politics for Republicans, not about solving real problems, with real solutions, that net benefit America.

More ‘undocumented’ immigration is the result of overstaying ‘temporary’ visas than from illegally crossing the border. The primary ‘root cause’ of ‘undocumented’ immigration is the ease of getting US employment and the unnecessary difficulty of legal immigration.

These are human lives we're talking about, not just "favorable demographics". WHY would demographics be favorable?
The people that helped them look better than the people that tried to kill them and shame them?
Funny that.

Having an underclass of low wage workers, subsidized by numerous federal “safety net” programs, benefits the donor class.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Sorry I get overzealous in responses.

Yes, government spending helps drive our economy...intentionally slowing our economy (when it's not specifically to slow it from a bubble or because it's running too hot), seems counter-productive.
I'd like to see us try MMT the way we tried your libertarian philosophy during the Clinton/Greenspan era (that ultimately led to collapse). Quietly pay off 1/5th of the U.S. debt by (fiat), and see if it works out OK.
Have 2 backup-plans to mitigate harm in the event it's net-negative. at least we'd know!

Governments/economy are strange, it's not like household debt, it's perpetual, and when we spend in growing our economy and infrastructure and education and health of our nation, it pays dividends to us. Let's invest in us, instead of in hate and the rich...

That’s simply an excuse to perpetually allow the federal government to spend more than it dare ask for (demand?) in federal tax revenue.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

Bush was a boob, but he wasn't a complete monster.

Indeed, he ran on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" and Democrats were outraged when he spent taxpayer money on existing charities. Not much they could do about it though, being in the minority everywhere. It's not such a terrible idea: charities have an agenda, they have volunteers and even their paid executives often come from a volunteer background. Democrats were mostly bothered by money going to religious charities.

Then 9/11 happened, and a wartime government in which Democrats had to support whatever Republicans chose to do. It wrecked them in 2004. You have to wonder about the political foresight of people who kept their heads down in 2004 and then got uppity in 2006. Surely they knew the Iraq war was wrong, stupid, and a waste of money and lives ... but they never said so, until the American People told them it was time to change sides.

Surely they would lead, or lose office trying. It's not like the Iraq war was a small target.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

The solution to ‘undocumented’ immigration is to enact an eVerify mandate, coupled with changes to the federal income tax code to allow IRS to serve as the primary enforcement mechanism.

1. OK, you want every employer in the US to fill out a form. 2. Not OK. You want illegal immigrants to stop paying tax. You get nothing from that, except less tax.

More ‘undocumented’ immigration is the result of overstaying ‘temporary’ visas than from illegally crossing the border. The primary ‘root cause’ of ‘undocumented’ immigration is the ease of getting US employment and the unnecessary difficulty of legal immigration.

You say "unnecessary" but I'm thinking of wanted criminals crossing the border outwards. Don't we have a duty to Canada, Mexico and really every nation, to identify leavers and screen them for being "wanted."?

To be brutal about it, we could flag emigrants as "wanted" and leave their processing to the other nation. They might return the suspect (as they're legally entitled to do) but they might also subject them to a lower standard of justice and a lower standard of punishment. It wouldn't cost the US a cent. It would send a clear message to criminals: don't come to the US to commit crime, and even if you do, don't try to run.

Having an underclass of low wage workers, subsidized by numerous federal “safety net” programs, benefits the donor class.

It benefits everyone ... except of course the low wage workers themselves. They should be free to leave, and if they don't then it's a logical conclusion that lower pay with substandard worker protections is still better than what they would get in their home country.

What really bothers the anti-immigration people, is that migrants don't just stay in the agricultural underclass. They sometimes get better jobs, and compete with the uneducated class.

I'm talking about poor people, on the three axes of education, social skills, and attitude to work. Ideally you'd have all three (personally I don't) but if you're born poor in the US, and have some education, there is one big barrier and it's attitude to work. You've likely been screwed over by bosses, because they simply don't like you. There are good bosses, I won't deny that, but just one boss can really screw up your attitude to work. Social skills are the real winner, a boss who likes you will give you breaks and from that follows a good attitude to work.

So I guess what I'm saying is that American born assholes who worry that maybe their boss doesn't like them, are afraid of immigrants. The immigrant might just be a nicer person than they are.

 

[Mach]

The solution to ‘undocumented’ immigration is to enact an eVerify mandate, coupled with changes to the federal income tax code to allow IRS to serve as the primary enforcement mechanism.
More ‘undocumented’ immigration is the result of overstaying ‘temporary’ visas than from illegally crossing the border. The primary ‘root cause’ of ‘undocumented’ immigration is the ease of getting US employment and the unnecessary difficulty of legal immigration.
Having an underclass of low wage workers, subsidized by numerous federal “safety net” programs, benefits the donor class.

I don't understand why this is a top issue for Republican voters though. I mean, I know why, right wing propaganda.
What I'm saying is I don't know why people not looking at the propaganda, prioritize this as a key issue for the United States.
By all accounts, it's a minimal impact. There are pros and cons, but by in large, it's poor people coming here for a better life (the American dream?), and they work and do not come here looking for welfare.
They get a lot of jobs because they work for less/work hard, but they don't really compete directly with native jobs. They do add to the economy, but most of the benefits go to them in the form of their earnings from wages, so it's a real small difference at best OR worst.

It's like, from a rural county random person, has zero impact except they are mad they hear "press two for espanol".

So why #1 issue, when it has zero impact?

Republican strategists look for every possible way to gain votes for their side, and hinder votes for the opposition.
They see anti-immigration is easy to push because many people (throughout history, it's in our genetics), can be whipped up into a frenzy of hate and rage against "outsiders". Then scapegoated...all your problems..mostly caused by these outsiders!
And strategists also see this as a win, if this has a net negative impact on "People who end up voting for Democrats, who didn't demonize them and hate them, and tried to help them). This is happening around the world right now, see the U.K.
A win-win for Republicans seeking office.

I mean, that's how cynically see it. You guys are selling out the country to the rich and powerful, and in return, they REFUSE to fix an issue that to most of the voters crying about it, will have a tiny impact on their daily life, if any EITHER WAY.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I mean, that's how cynically see it. You guys are selling out the country to the rich and powerful, and in return, they REFUSE to fix an issue that to most of the voters crying about it, will have a tiny impact on their daily life, if any EITHER WAY.

True, Democrats had two years in power when they could have passed an immigration bill.

At the very least they could have cut court waiting times, for immigration and asylum cases. This is a terrible oversight, and it's too late to fix it.

 

[Mach]

True, Democrats had two years in power when they could have passed an immigration bill. At the very least they could have cut court waiting times, for immigration and asylum cases. This is a terrible oversight, and it's too late to fix it.

When? wouldn't immigration, based on what I wrote, be a lower priority for Democrats than say, healthcare for the nation, or economic recovery, or infrastructure (if needed)?
Immigration reform just seems like the right thing to do, it's not some huge burden or boon on the economy/population..it IS a huge burden on the undocumented/illegals..but they also typically work and are where they want to be..so it's not a complete calamity for them either..

 

[ttwtt78640]

1. OK, you want every employer in the US to fill out a form. 2. Not OK. You want illegal immigrants to stop paying tax. You get nothing from that, except less tax.

Taxpayers already “fill out forms”, since that’s required by federal law. Offering low compensation, which appeals mainly to those unable to seek employment elsewhere, gets us more low wage workers.

You say "unnecessary" but I'm thinking of wanted criminals crossing the border outwards. Don't we have a duty to Canada, Mexico and really every nation, to identify leavers and screen them for being "wanted."?

People leaving the US aren’t immigrants.

To be brutal about it, we could flag emigrants as "wanted" and leave their processing to the other nation. They might return the suspect (as they're legally entitled to do) but they might also subject them to a lower standard of justice and a lower standard of punishment. It wouldn't cost the US a cent. It would send a clear message to criminals: don't come to the US to commit crime, and even if you do, don't try to run.

I have no idea what that has to do with legal immigration.

It benefits everyone ... except of course the low wage workers themselves. They should be free to leave, and if they don't then it's a logical conclusion that lower pay with substandard worker protections is still better than what they would get in their home country.

You ignore that fact that lower wage workers use more government services than they pay in taxes. If these are ‘jobs which (few) US citizens or documented immigrants will do’ then that encourages more (endless?) illegal immigration and increased taxation of higher wage workers.

What really bothers the anti-immigration people, is that migrants don't just stay in the agricultural underclass. They sometimes get better jobs, and compete with the uneducated class.

You seem to equate an objection to illegal immigration to an objection to immigration.

I'm talking about poor people, on the three axes of education, social skills, and attitude to work. Ideally you'd have all three (personally I don't) but if you're born poor in the US, and have some education, there is one big barrier and it's attitude to work. You've likely been screwed over by bosses, because they simply don't like you. There are good bosses, I won't deny that, but just one boss can really screw up your attitude to work. Social skills are the real winner, a boss who likes you will give you breaks and from that follows a good attitude to work.

So I guess what I'm saying is that American born assholes who worry that maybe their boss doesn't like them, are afraid of immigrants. The immigrant might just be a nicer person than they are.

Nope, my objection is to the ability of employers (job creators) to be able to attract and retain qualified labor without adequate compensation (pay and fringe benefits) due to the availability of ‘undocumented’ immigrants. Absent ‘undocumented’ immigrants in the available labor pool, the employer (job creator) would have to offer more compensation in order to attract and retain qualified labor.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't understand why this is a top issue for Republican voters though. I mean, I know why, right wing propaganda.
What I'm saying is I don't know why people not looking at the propaganda, prioritize this as a key issue for the United States.
By all accounts, it's a minimal impact. There are pros and cons, but by in large, it's poor people coming here for a better life (the American dream?), and they work and do not come here looking for welfare.

The ‘undocumented’ immigrants allow employers (job creators) to attract and retain qualified labor by simply exceeding ‘third world’ labor compensation.

They get a lot of jobs because they work for less/work hard, but they don't really compete directly with native jobs. They do add to the economy, but most of the benefits go to them in the form of their earnings from wages, so it's a real small difference at best OR worst.

What jobs didn’t (or wouldn’t) exist without the availability of ‘undocumented’ immigrants?

It's like, from a rural county random person, has zero impact except they are mad they hear "press two for espanol".

So why #1 issue, when it has zero impact?

It impacts US wages for legal workers to have to compete with ‘undocumented’ immigrant labor.

Republican strategists look for every possible way to gain votes for their side, and hinder votes for the opposition.
They see anti-immigration is easy to push because many people (throughout history, it's in our genetics), can be whipped up into a frenzy of hate and rage against "outsiders". Then scapegoated...all your problems..mostly caused by these outsiders!
And strategists also see this as a win, if this has a net negative impact on "People who end up voting for Democrats, who didn't demonize them and hate them, and tried to help them). This is happening around the world right now, see the U.K.
A win-win for Republicans seeking office.

I mean, that's how cynically see it. You guys are selling out the country to the rich and powerful, and in return, they REFUSE to fix an issue that to most of the voters crying about it, will have a tiny impact on their daily life, if any EITHER WAY.

You seem to equate objection to ‘undocumented’ immigration to an objection to legal immigration. They are entirely different things, which is why nations have immigration laws.

 

[Mach]

The ‘undocumented’ immigrants allow employers (job creators) to attract and retain qualified labor by simply exceeding ‘third world’ labor compensation.

Probably so.

What jobs didn’t (or wouldn’t) exist without the availability of ‘undocumented’ immigrants?

I don't know about exist or not, but be dramatically impacted...seems like in border areas there are a lot of labor jobs done cheaply and they are usually owned by natives.

It impacts US wages for legal workers to have to compete with ‘undocumented’ immigrant labor.

Not much either way, that's my point. Some positives, some negatives...net result is not very big.

You seem to equate objection to ‘undocumented’ immigration to an objection to legal immigration. They are entirely different things, which is why nations have immigration laws.

They are not treated distinctively in the minds of many voters, as Fox's Laura Ingrahm taught us (kidding, we already knew it, she just said it loud)
Let's not kid ourselves, many people opposing immigration at the feverish level they do, is because of racism made worse by the right claiming they took our jobs, and raped and killed, are on welfare, and polluted our nice pure society...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Probably so.

I don't know about exist or not, but be dramatically impacted...seems like in border areas there are a lot of labor jobs done cheaply and they are usually owned by natives.

Not much either way, that's my point. Some positives, some negatives...net result is not very big.

Those results are very big for other low wage workers.

They are not treated distinctively in the minds of many voters, as Fox's Laura Ingrahm taught us (kidding, we already knew it, she just said it loud)
Let's not kid ourselves, many people opposing immigration at the feverish level they do, is because of racism made worse by the right claiming they took our jobs, and raped and killed, are on welfare, and polluted our nice pure society...

You continue to make up (racial and/or xenophobic?) motives for people saying what I’m saying.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Bullshit.


From the article...

The dramatic surge in unauthorized immigration in Biden’s first few years was spurred by major factors outside of the president’s control, such as the ebbing of the Covid-19 pandemic and upheaval in several Latin American countries.​

Since it was the border czar's job to work with the factors that were "outside of the president's control", it's obvious she failed.

The rest of that article is a mealy-mouthed attempt to make excuses for Biden.

It is also plausible that Biden’s more lenient immigration stance, relative to Trump, contributed to some degree.​

​

His defenders often argued that the main drivers of immigration were not within the president’s control and that his responses were constrained by a broken legal and political process, insufficient resources, and Republicans’ refusal to act on legislation.​

​

The asylum claim system is incredibly backlogged and detention capacity is limited, so it’s common to release claimants into the US during the long wait until their claims are heard.​

The writer of that article is between a rock (reality) and a hard place (Biden's actions) and is trying to admit the former without admitting the latter.

The fact is, Biden and Harris INVITED the border crossers. They deliberately removed Trump's actions that reduced the number of border crossers. They stopped construction of the wall which would have made it more difficult for illegal aliens to simply walk across the border.

It was Biden and Harris who CAUSED the asylum claim system to become incredibly backlogged.

And...it is a fact that Biden and Harris have done FAR, FAR worse than Trump did about illegal aliens. Ten to twenty million illegal aliens in less than four years is proof of that.

I heard it was actually like about 86 billion illegal human beings.

 

[Mach]

Those results are very big for other low wage workers.

I couldn't find evidence to support that. Have you?
No rush and no need, I'm just interested because what I found was like on the order of 1-2% in certain regions where immigrants are.

You continue to make up (racial and/or xenophobic?) motives for people saying what I’m saying.

And you continue to deny right wing propaganda uses that, and people have those feelings and express them on a daily basis.

I'm not saying you are personally guilty of that, I don't believe you are, we're talking about the political/voting context.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I couldn't find evidence to support that. Have you?
No rush and no need, I'm just interested because what I found was like on the order of 1-2% in certain regions where immigrants are.

I’ve worked multiple jobs for employers who employed ‘undocumented’ immigrants and currently work as a self-employed handyman. One place (Cardell Cabinetry in San Antonio, TX) held company meetings in Spanish. When rumors spread that ICE agents were on the property, a significant portion of the workforce headed for the exits.

And you continue to deny right wing propaganda uses that, and people have those feelings and express them on a daily basis.

I'm not saying you are personally guilty of that, I don't believe you are, we're talking about the political/voting context.

Have you personally talked to such people, or simply assume what their motives must be?