Adding population does two things: it increases the pool of folks looking for work and it increases the demand for goods and services that, in turn, leads to job creation.
If that were true, immigrants could stay in their own countries and earn the same type of living. We have a limited amount of capital and can absorb a limited number of immigrants at a time without seriously reducing the standard of living for US citizens. Do we have a right to limit the number of immigrants coming into the country or not?
Of course we have the right to limit immigration. No one is arguing otherwise.
Your response to basic economic facts makes no sense. Wage differentials in different countries are, again, a complete issue involving all kinds of factors.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Of course we have the right to limit immigration. No one is arguing otherwise.
Then the asylum laws need to be changed. They're basically stopping us from enforcing the border without incurring a ridicuolous amount of court costs, housing illegal immigrants we put in jail, paying for foster families etc. Enforcing the border would mean none of this would even get started.
I'm fine with immigration that is in the best interest of America and her citizens. It's our country. We're not just citizens of the world.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Of course we have the right to limit immigration. No one is arguing otherwise.
Then the asylum laws need to be changed. They're basically stopping us from enforcing the border without incurring a ridicuolous amount of court costs, housing illegal immigrants we put in jail, paying for foster families etc. Enforcing the border would mean none of this would even get started.
I'm fine with immigration that is in the best interest of America and her citizens. It's our country. We're not just citizens of the world.
note that currently +80% of asylum claims are proven to be fraudulent, most often after the fact.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote:note that currently +80% of asylum claims are proven to be fraudulent, most often after the fact.
Fraudulent? CFR on that subbie. The percentage is made up, which is bad enough, but claiming that asylum cases are proven "fraudulent" is the sort of language games that might win viewers on Fox but won't hold up under scrutiny.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Of course we have the right to limit immigration. No one is arguing otherwise.
Then the asylum laws need to be changed. They're basically stopping us from enforcing the border without incurring a ridicuolous amount of court costs, housing illegal immigrants we put in jail, paying for foster families etc. Enforcing the border would mean none of this would even get started.
I'm fine with immigration that is in the best interest of America and her citizens. It's our country. We're not just citizens of the world.
We are and have always “enforced the border.” That you want stricter immigration limits does not mean we aren’t enforcing.
The argument is about what is best for America. We disagree on that.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
The Trump admin commissioned a study on economic effects of the past 10 years of refugees in America. It found a net 63 billion benefit to the economy. So the Trump admin censored that conclusion and only published the costs:
The NYT was able to obtain the original draft report to reveal this. I mention this because the choices are not, "accept no refugees" or "everyone who is impoverished in the world moves to America immediately." There's an actual, definable flux of refugees coming to America at any given point and we can understand what that impact is in addition to weighing other moral concerns. Research is pretty consistent in showing that on the whole, it's an economic benefit at any level that is realistic to happen. If this really were about costs and economic impact, Ajax, like the Trump admin, wouldn't be so impervious to what the data actually shows.
So again, the President is, shall we say, out in front of most established law with respect to due process.
It strikes me more and more that this country is not like Nazi Germany, but like the United States would have been in the 1950's if Joseph McCarthy had taken control of the Republican Party from the Eisenhower wing. The difference was that McCarthy would have been going up against IKE, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II. In the afterglow of World War II, even the virulence of McCarthy's anti-communism would not have been strong enough to take the sheen off Eisenhower. We didn't have a Democrat or Republican in 2016 with the gravitas of an Eisenhower to go against Trump.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
You can't know a person is here illegally unless you give them due process. Otherwise, you're just declaring that government authorities have the right to deport anyone without the basic protection of them needing to present evidence their allegations are true in a court of law.
EAllusion wrote:The Trump admin commissioned a study on economic effects of the past 10 years of refugees in America. It found a net 63 billion benefit to the economy. So the Trump admin censored that conclusion and only published the costs:
The New York Times was able to obtain the original draft report to reveal this. I mention this because the choices are not, "accept no refugees" or "everyone who is impoverished in the world moves to America immediately." There's an actual, definable flux of refugees coming to America at any given point and we can understand what that impact is in addition to weighing other moral concerns. Research is pretty consistent in showing that on the whole, it's an economic benefit at any level that is realistic to happen. If this really were about costs and economic impact, Ajax, like the Trump admin, wouldn't be so impervious to what the data actually shows.
Excellent point. And the program that was started by Obama was does away with by Trump last year. I posted on this twice in this thread with very little feedback.
The Family Case Management Program, which President Donald Trump ended several months after taking office, was meant to keep track of immigrant parents and kids in removal proceedings without having to keep them locked up. It was relatively small ― about 950 families in five locations. But it was hugely successful: More than 99 percent of families in the program showed up for their court dates, and 97 percent participated in required check-ins with their case managers, according to a report from Geo Care, the private prison company that operated the program. And it reportedly cost the government just $36 per family each day, versus $319 per bed per day in a family detention center.
So this isn't about costs, it is about repelling as many asylum seekers as possible. Trump recently said he wanted to do away with judges and due process.
The recently obtained recordings from a detention facility is pretty heartbreaking. The mob boss-like threatening of a kid about going to the media was a nice touch.