• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On those "root causes" of immigration

NatMorton

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
52,337
Reaction score
27,173
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Posted this sentiment in another thread, but it's worthy of its own OP.

Our friends on the left have been trying mighty hard to defend VP Harris's record on immigration by claiming she was only ever tasked to identify "root causes." That is a lie by omission, she was also tasked with curbing current levels of migration at the time, but let's run with it. Some web searching on what Harris and the Biden administration believe to be the root causes of migration (illegal and otherwise) include the following:
  • Economic Inequality
  • Violence and Insecurity
  • Government Corruption
  • Climate Change
  • Human Rights Abuses

And I think we can agree that's probably a good list.

Now, we must consider two alternatives:
  1. Harris and the administration honestly believe that those social pathologies in the hemisphere's shit-hole countries can be solved in a meaningful time frame by actions taken in Washington.

  2. Harris and the administration know damned well they can do nothing of consequence in the coming years to address those "root causes," and it's all a show because they have no real interest in stemming the flow of illegal immigration.

If you believe #1, congratulations. You have been duped.
 
NatMorton said:
Posted this sentiment in another thread, but it's worthy of its own OP.

Our friends on the left have been trying mighty hard to defend VP Harris's record on immigration by claiming she was only ever tasked to identify "root causes." That is a lie by omission, she was also tasked with curbing current levels of migration at the time, but let's run with it. Some web searching on what Harris and the Biden administration believe to be the root causes of migration (illegal and otherwise) include the following:
  • Economic Inequality
  • Violence and Insecurity
  • Government Corruption
  • Climate Change
  • Human Rights Abuses

And I think we can agree that's probably a good list.

Now, we must consider two alternatives:
  1. Harris and the administration honestly believe that those social pathologies in the hemisphere's shit-hole countries can be solved in a meaningful time frame by actions taken in Washington.

  2. Harris and the administration know damned well they can do nothing of consequence in the coming years to address those "root causes," and it's all a show because they have no real interest in stemming the flow of illegal immigration.

If you believe #1, congratulations. You have been duped.
Click to expand...

What have republicans ever done to fix the border? Asking for a friend.
 
It's a very simple equation, actually.

Labor is expensive.

Giant corporations want cheaper labor.

So both parties are pro-immigration because it's their handlers and donors who direct policy.
 
How often does the joint Congressional committee of Democrats and Republicans on ameliorating the illegal immigrant situation meet?

Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . informed.
 
Gozaburo said:
It's a very simple equation, actually.

Labor is expensive.

Giant corporations want cheaper labor.

So both parties are pro-immigration because it's their handlers and donors who direct policy.
Click to expand...
Giant corporations are fined heavily if they're caught hiring illegal immigrants. Which "giant corporations" do you think are doing this?
 
Gozaburo said:
It's a very simple equation, actually.

Labor is expensive.

Giant corporations want cheaper labor.

So both parties are pro-immigration because it's their handlers and donors who direct policy.
Click to expand...

Ironically, an actual open border policy would destroy that business model by forcing Capital to compete for Labor. With a closed border, Labor is held captive while Capital, goods, services cross freely. So, Labor has the choice of remaining in low wage low regulatory nations or risking the border crossing and hiding in the shadows here.

It is quite clever.
 
Why heed Republicans?

They spent years shouting about a wall that Mexico would pay for, replaced some fencing, and shot down every last bill the Dems pushed for increased funding of mixed border security (just not a stupid ****ing wall).

The GOP needs there to be an influx of those people so they can rile up their dumbass base. Actually address the problem and they'd have to find something else to faux-rage about.




Typical horse shit from @NatMorton
 
NatMorton said:
Giant corporations are fined heavily if they're caught hiring illegal immigrants. Which "giant corporations" do you think are doing this?
Click to expand...
I was under the impression this thread was discussing all forms of immigration.

Bok Tuklo said:
Ironically, an actual open border policy would destroy that business model by forcing Capital to compete for Labor. With a closed border, Labor is held captive while Capital, goods, services cross freely. So, Labor has the choice of remaining in low wage low regulatory nations or risking the border crossing and hiding in the shadows here.

It is quite clever.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with this at all.

First of all, a truly "open" border would completely destroy the government's ability to create social funding and safety nets. Secondly, I don't understand how this wouldn't just dramatically increase the source of supply, driving down demand. If the US was geographically placed next to a bunch of similar countries which were equal-to or greater than us in terms of economic performance than maybe your point has some merit. This is why I constantly have arguments with people about how sea European immigration to an America which was pre-Empire is decisively different than what is happening today. I don't think you can approach both with the same policy unless you want to intentionally destroy the integrity of the economy and government.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Ironically, an actual open border policy would destroy that business model by forcing Capital to compete for Labor.
Click to expand...

Bok Tuklo said:
With a closed border, Labor is held captive while Capital, goods, services cross freely.
Click to expand...
This flies in the face of what we've experienced in the previous administration.

With the previous administration's tighter border labor supply was tight, corporations had to compete for labor, which led to increased wages for labor.

With 'an actual open border policy' labor supply would no longer be tight, and wages would fall.

Do you really not understand the simplest application of the law of supply and demand?

Bok Tuklo said:
So, Labor has the choice of remaining in low wage low regulatory nations or risking the border crossing and hiding in the shadows here.

It is quite clever.
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
This flies in the face of what we've experienced in the previous administration.

With the previous administration's tighter border labor supply was tight, corporations had to compete for labor, which led to increased wages for labor.

With 'an actual open border policy' labor supply would no longer be tight, and wages would fall.

Do you really not understand the simplest application of the law of supply and demand?
Click to expand...

Economies grow as the population grows. Those laborers are also consumers, increasing demand.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Ironically, an actual open border policy would destroy that business model by forcing Capital to compete for Labor. With a closed border, Labor is held captive while Capital, goods, services cross freely. So, Labor has the choice of remaining in low wage low regulatory nations or risking the border crossing and hiding in the shadows here.

It is quite clever.
Click to expand...
what? an influx of millions of people into the workforce does NOT make anyone compete for labor. it LOWERS the value of human labor at whatever tier the new labor is working at.

well in this country anyway. I am not here to worry about other countries.
 
j brown's body said:
Economies grow as the population grows. Those laborers are also consumers, increasing demand.
Click to expand...
right now they aren't consumers, right now they are living off taxpayer dollars.
 
Mr Person said:
Why heed Republicans?

They spent years shouting about a wall that Mexico would pay for, replaced some fencing, and shot down every last bill the Dems pushed for increased funding of mixed border security (just not a stupid ****ing wall).

The GOP needs there to be an influx of those people so they can rile up their dumbass base. Actually address the problem and they'd have to find something else to faux-rage about.




Typical horse shit from @NatMorton
Click to expand...
Another deflection post.

It's about doing anything other than addressing the issue at hand.
 
Gozaburo said:
I'm not sure I agree with this at all.

First of all, a truly "open" border would completely destroy the government's ability to create social funding and safety nets. Secondly, I don't understand how this wouldn't just dramatically increase the source of supply, driving down demand. If the US was geographically placed next to a bunch of similar countries which were equal-to or greater than us in terms of economic performance than maybe your point has some merit. This is why I constantly have arguments with people about how sea European immigration to an America which was pre-Empire is decisively different than what is happening today. I don't think you can approach both with the same policy unless you want to intentionally destroy the integrity of the economy and government.
Click to expand...

Your response reminds me of an old joke:

An economist and his friend were walking together when they walked past a 100$ bill. “Didn’t you see the money there?” the friend asks. The economist replies: “I thought I saw something, but I must have imagined it. If there had been 100$ on the ground, someone would have picked it up.”

It would certainly be initially disruptive; I can't argue with that. And I will leave aside the moral argument. Access to capital, predictable legal systems, and a ready market instantly makes labor more productive when moving from a poor to a rich country. Even in highly developed countries we see where closing borders has a detrimental effect. The UK is a test case for the stupidity of moving from an open to a closed border. If the Japanese weren't so supremacist, they could solve a great deal of their stagnation by loosening their borders.

I believe we may be walking past a 100$ bill.
 
Hypothetical said:
what? an influx of millions of people into the workforce does NOT make anyone compete for labor. it LOWERS the value of human labor at whatever tier the new labor is working at.

well in this country anyway. I am not here to worry about other countries.
Click to expand...

It is strange how people believe the world stops at the border.

You don't think there would be a response?
 
Bok Tuklo said:
It is strange how people believe the world stops at the border.

You don't think there would be a response?
Click to expand...
The world can solve it's own problems and I am not asking for a completely closed border, just for more restrictive laws on ILLEGAL immigration crossings.

if they are coming across it will be in numbers WE approve of WHEN we approve of it and in the manner of us being able to take roll of them.

This is WE, the people's country, not the World's.
 
NatMorton said:
I think you mean deflecting for a friend.
Click to expand...

You brought up the issue of the border and immigration, as conservatives always do. So since conservatives take this issue very, very seriously, I’d like to know what they’ve ever done to fix this problem.
 
NatMorton said:
Every item on that list means that every "undocumented immigrant" referred to in that article as "helping America" is guilty of a felony.
Click to expand...

How so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom