Dark Brandon Owning the MAGAs

[canpakes]

I think full-on open borders/immigration at this point would potentially be disastrous to America, but I'm also not fancy-pants smart. There's a lot of ground between reasonable and effective policies and no policies at all (and the trainwreck we currently pretend works).

I always liked the idea of folks having a clean record being allowed to easily enter the country and apply for legal citizen status, with the following basic conditions to apply:

1. No public assistance allowed for the first year after the applicant is granted citizenship status, with a 5-year ‘vesting’ period afterward, offering 20% of normal benefits in Year 2, increasing by that allowance each year until fully vested in Year 6.

2. Any felony conviction for an incident that occurs within the first 6 years of citizen residency (regardless of court decision occurring during or after the probationary period) results in an immediate deportation.

The approach would favor initial assistance through local organizations and family, and encourage new citizens to eschew activities that can put their citizenship at risk.

I’m sure that both sides of the issue can take objection with these two basic requirements, but they seem like a fair starting point in a debate about any changes to the system. Please note that as an aspie-addled moron, I haven’t thought this through for more than 3 minutes, and I’m not pretending to know how practical or fair this is under all circumstances. : D

[ajax18]

Do you agree with the [libertarian economist, Jeffrey Miron, writing for the Koch-co-founded CATO Institute] that open borders will result in existing residents voting for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants?

If union votes for contract agreements are any indicator of human/American nature, it's certainly probable.

Overall though, Americans' have proven themselves again and again to have an insatiable "crabs in a bucket" mentality (see, for example, minimum wage debates, student loan forgiveness, etc.), and a knee-jerk fairness limbic drive that rivals other primates. I think it's all but guaranteed that if recent immigrants were to be seen as being primary beneficiaries of a particular type of public funding, less-recent immigrants and native born individuals would predominantly vote against it.

As an aside, Miron has a PhD in Economics from M.I.T., and it's moderately safe to assume based on his CV that he's got a decent amount of study/knowledge under his belt in the realms of psychology and sociology.

I think full-on open borders/immigration at this point would potentially be disastrous to America, but I'm also not fancy-pants smart. There's a lot of ground between reasonable and effective policies and no policies at all (and the trainwreck we currently pretend works).

Thank you. You're the first person to give a straight answer to the question and I didn't even have to ask.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

From the link in the article with regard to welfare:

According to our surveys, respondents from six developed countries have strongly biased views on immi­grants. They think that there are many more immigrants than there actually are, have incorrect views about their origins, and believe that immigrants are more reliant on the host country’s welfare state, more unemployed, and less educated than they actually are.

Misperceptions about immigrants, and the subse­quent lack of support for immigration and redistribution, are starkest among three groups of respondents: the non college-educated, those working in immigration intensive sectors and without a college degree, and right-wing respondents. Misperceptions are shaped by respondents’ local exposure to immigrants. Respon­dents extrapolate to some extent from non-immigrants’ characteristics and tend to exaggerate differences between immigrants and non-immigrants.

Correlating misperceptions and policy preferences, the strongest predictor of reduced support for redistribution is whether respondents believe in the “free-riding” narratives about immigrants, followed by their perceptions of the economic weakness of immigrants. The perceived cultural distance of immigrants is less predictive of policy support, as is the perceived share of immigrants. Our randomized priming treatment that prompts respondents to think about immigrants and their char­acteristics before asking them questions about redistribution significantly decreases support for redistribu­tion.

However, factual information about the share and origins of immigrants does not increase support for redistribution. On the contrary, it also acts as a prime for respondents to think about immigrants, with the ensuing reduction in support for redistribution that the salience treatment generates. A “hard-work” narrative to some extent counters the negative priming effect on redistribution. Overall, it seems that views on immigration are more sensitive to salience and narratives than to hard facts.

Our results suggest that much of the political debate about immigration takes place in a world of mis­information about immigrants. Obviously the amount and nature of information that citizens receive is endogenous. Anti-immigration parties have an incentive to maintain and even foster stereotypes, which can lead to a vicious cycle. The more people are misinformed, the more they may look for confirmation of their stereotypes in the media and the media may then have an incentive to offer information supporting these views in order to cater to their customers. For instance, immigrants who commit crimes or who free-ride on the welfare system may receive more media coverage than non-immigrants engaging in these same behav­iors. Conversely, immigrants living in ways similar to non-immigrants may receive less coverage. Another implication of our results could be that a focus on immigration issues in the current political debate could have the unintended consequence of reducing support for redistribution, in addition to reducing support for more open immigration policies. Anti-redistribution parties, even those not averse to immigration per se, can appeal to voters’ feelings about immigration to generate backlash against redistribution.

The linked study is very thorough:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24733

You’ll have to download the pdf.

The bottom line is Ajax’s question was irrelevant because, based on the study, non-immigrant populations will vote against increasing welfare benefits to immigrants. In other words, and according to the Institute’s various studies, the economic upsides of legalizing immigration, a.k.a. open borders, will result in a massive boom for employers being able to find talent and labor, increase tax revenues that’ll far exceed any welfare offsets, and reduce immigration-related costs in the tens of billions.

Would I personally vote for welfare increases? I don’t even know what that means when presented to me by someone like Ajax. But my first inclination is “no” - and I’ve already given my position on this board with regard to welfare many times, which was promptly ignored or unread by Ajax.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

Well you're a liberal and you do work. You seem to enjoy paying taxes and continue to vote for tax increases. Maybe democratic socialism has more to do with implementing equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunity. So if you enjoy working at a lower paying job, you should still get paid the same as doing a job that you don't particularly enjoy. Being a Democrat is more about weaponizing institutions like the IRS, FBI, DoJ, etc. against their political opponents who don't share the same zeal for advancing communism.

I don't recall voting for tax increases. Donald Trump spent more during his term than anyone else in history and so somebody will need to pay that off at some time. He even signed his name to the checks, proving ownership of the debt.

I doubt that you can sift through the myriad of social programs available and find strict correlations between results-based and opportunity-based programs linking to Republicans and Democrats. In fact, you yourself call pretty much anybody before Trump a "RINO", and so your brand of conservativism is new, narrow and untested. It's a lot of anger and big talk, and big spending under Trump, and little else to go by to determine what it will result in.

Democrats "weaponizing" law enforcement is a new strain of complaint from you, I doubt you can find similar conceptions of Democrats from your own mouth going back through the many years you've posted on this forum. It's just in recent weeks or months, since you've listened to one or two audio books and Trump has a snowball's chance in hell of facing consequences for his many crimes as a career criminal, that you're spun up over Democrats using police force to silence Republicans.

[ajax18]

I think full-on open borders/immigration at this point would potentially be disastrous to America, but I'm also not fancy-pants smart. There's a lot of ground between reasonable and effective policies and no policies at all (and the trainwreck we currently pretend works).

I always liked the idea of folks having a clean record being allowed to easily enter the country and apply for legal citizen status, with the following basic conditions to apply:

1. No public assistance allowed for the first year after the applicant is granted citizenship status, with a 5-year ‘vesting’ period afterward, offering 20% of normal benefits in Year 2, increasing by that allowance each year until fully vested in Year 6.

2. Any felony conviction for an incident that occurs within the first 6 years of citizen residency (regardless of court decision occurring during or after the probationary period) results in an immediate deportation.

The approach would favor initial assistance through local organizations and family, and encourage new citizens to eschew activities that can put their citizenship at risk.

I’m sure that both sides of the issue can take objection with these two basic requirements, but they seem like a fair starting point in a debate about any changes to the system. Please note that as an aspie-addled moron, I haven’t thought this through for more than 3 minutes, and I’m not pretending to know how practical or fair this is under all circumstances. : D

Deportation is meaningless when the border is purposely left open by Democrats to secure more votes. Illegal immigrants are already approved to vote in Washington D.C.

[Vēritās]

Deportation is meaningless when the border is purposely left open by Democrats to secure more votes. Illegal immigrants are already approved to vote in Washington D.C.

Tell us you're an idiot without saying "I'm an idiot."

1. There are no open borders. Never have been.

2. Illegal immigrants cannot vote, so the entire argument, conjured up by white supremacists, is moot.

3. Non citizens, not "illegal immigrants," were allowed to vote only in local elections in DC.

4. How the F does one "secure more votes" by deporting the voters?

[Vēritās]

From the link in the article with regard to welfare:

According to our surveys, respondents from six developed countries have strongly biased views on immi­grants. They think that there are many more immigrants than there actually are, have incorrect views about their origins, and believe that immigrants are more reliant on the host country’s welfare state, more unemployed, and less educated than they actually are.

Misperceptions about immigrants, and the subse­quent lack of support for immigration and redistribution, are starkest among three groups of respondents: the non college-educated, those working in immigration intensive sectors and without a college degree, and right-wing respondents. Misperceptions are shaped by respondents’ local exposure to immigrants. Respon­dents extrapolate to some extent from non-immigrants’ characteristics and tend to exaggerate differences between immigrants and non-immigrants.

Correlating misperceptions and policy preferences, the strongest predictor of reduced support for redistribution is whether respondents believe in the “free-riding” narratives about immigrants, followed by their perceptions of the economic weakness of immigrants. The perceived cultural distance of immigrants is less predictive of policy support, as is the perceived share of immigrants. Our randomized priming treatment that prompts respondents to think about immigrants and their char­acteristics before asking them questions about redistribution significantly decreases support for redistribu­tion.

However, factual information about the share and origins of immigrants does not increase support for redistribution. On the contrary, it also acts as a prime for respondents to think about immigrants, with the ensuing reduction in support for redistribution that the salience treatment generates. A “hard-work” narrative to some extent counters the negative priming effect on redistribution. Overall, it seems that views on immigration are more sensitive to salience and narratives than to hard facts.

Our results suggest that much of the political debate about immigration takes place in a world of mis­information about immigrants. Obviously the amount and nature of information that citizens receive is endogenous. Anti-immigration parties have an incentive to maintain and even foster stereotypes, which can lead to a vicious cycle. The more people are misinformed, the more they may look for confirmation of their stereotypes in the media and the media may then have an incentive to offer information supporting these views in order to cater to their customers. For instance, immigrants who commit crimes or who free-ride on the welfare system may receive more media coverage than non-immigrants engaging in these same behav­iors. Conversely, immigrants living in ways similar to non-immigrants may receive less coverage. Another implication of our results could be that a focus on immigration issues in the current political debate could have the unintended consequence of reducing support for redistribution, in addition to reducing support for more open immigration policies. Anti-redistribution parties, even those not averse to immigration per se, can appeal to voters’ feelings about immigration to generate backlash against redistribution.

The linked study is very thorough:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w24733

You’ll have to download the pdf.

The bottom line is Ajax’s question was irrelevant because, based on the study, non-immigrant populations will vote against increasing welfare benefits to immigrants. In other words, and according to the Institute’s various studies, the economic upsides of legalizing immigration, a.k.a. open borders, will result in a massive boom for employers being able to find talent and labor, increase tax revenues that’ll far exceed any welfare offsets, and reduce immigration-related costs in the tens of billions.

Would I personally vote for welfare increases? I don’t even know what that means when presented to me by someone like Ajax. But my first inclination is “no” - and I’ve already given my position on this board with regard to welfare many times, which was promptly ignored or unread by Ajax.

- Doc

Ajax, like all white supremacists so caught up in race, actually believe getting government money is the reason why people vote. But the fact is those on welfare are far less likely to vote at all.

[canpakes]

I always liked the idea of folks having a clean record being allowed to easily enter the country and apply for legal citizen status, with the following basic conditions to apply:

1. No public assistance allowed for the first year after the applicant is granted citizenship status, with a 5-year ‘vesting’ period afterward, offering 20% of normal benefits in Year 2, increasing by that allowance each year until fully vested in Year 6.

2. Any felony conviction for an incident that occurs within the first 6 years of citizen residency (regardless of court decision occurring during or after the probationary period) results in an immediate deportation.

The approach would favor initial assistance through local organizations and family, and encourage new citizens to eschew activities that can put their citizenship at risk.

I’m sure that both sides of the issue can take objection with these two basic requirements, but they seem like a fair starting point in a debate about any changes to the system. Please note that as an aspie-addled moron, I haven’t thought this through for more than 3 minutes, and I’m not pretending to know how practical or fair this is under all circumstances. : D

Deportation is meaningless when the border is purposely left open by Democrats to secure more votes. Illegal immigrants are already approved to vote in Washington D.C.

ajax,

Then you have nothing to worry about. D.C has nearly no clout in Congress, only 3 electoral votes, and has voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate reliably since the Pleistocene, anyway. In other words, nothing would change, so you have nothing to worry about no matter the legal status of any recent immigrant.

And, deportation is no longer meaningless when it resets the 6-year clock.

But, why do you assume that any new citizen will automatically vote Democratic? They’re already citizens and subject to the conditions set out above, in my proposal. It sounds as if you’re reacting to the word ‘illegals’ without thinking through the rest of the scenario.

[ajax18]

4. How the F does one "secure more votes" by deporting the voters?

Mail in ballot harvesting is one possibility.

[ajax18]

And, deportation is no longer meaningless when it resets the 6-year clock.

So what. If they can just walk back across the border, what is deportation other than a free visit home for the holidays? I'd certainly prefer deportation over prison. You can't just walk right out of prison, unless you're under a Soros funded district attorneys jurisdiction and a registered Democrat.