6 hours ago, TEW said:

Make it legal to do illegal things and you would no longer have criminality!  

If you read history books, you’d also know that immigrant labor was always a societal problem… especially on the low/no skill spectrum. You’d also know that it was usually tightened in response. The most recent example being 1924. That lasted up until 1965.

It was definitely always a political wedge issue, good for carving out a base of voters.  If immigrant labor was always a "societal problem"...I mean, why did societies have them there in the first place? These immigrants, by definition, would always be outnumbered by whatever population they're moving to. Whichever society we talk about obviously had a use for them, 

Quote

 

Far from needing low skill labor, we need high earners. Makers not takers. We should cut off the illegals with extreme prejudice and open up immigration for high skill and high earning candidates. More electrical engineers, fewer janitors.

That's a hot take. Why do we need high earner immigrants? We're Americans - we're already earners. 70% of our GDP is consumption. Which kinda connects to our addiction to illegal immigration and low wage workers...the cost of consumables needs to be kept low so Americans can happily buy more things. Maybe your definition of "makers and takers" is skewed by the political outcome you want?

Quote

Anyway, this is all about votes from a political perspective and has nothing to do, at all, with labor. If illegals from south of the border voted red, democrats would be calling for drone strikes on our southern border.

Which is funny, because typically a bunch of very Christian blue collar workers coming up through Texas, etc, would likely be a reliable red vote. But they (and their naturalized descendants) aren't getting invited to the club...because, reasons.   

6 hours ago, TEW said:

Anyway, this is all about votes from a political perspective and has nothing to do, at all, with labor. If illegals from south of the border voted red, democrats would be calling for drone strikes on our southern border.

You are the one making it political, not me. But yeah, my stance in immigration is too pander votes for the LP. 😂😂😂

Aside from the economics argument , I live and work in the real world and realize the value of entry level and low skilled workers. Without them, very few businesses would survive. It’s a circular proposition, your highly skilled work force and low skilled workforce need each other and are equally important for the bottom line of an organization. 
 

1 hour ago, Lloyd said:

It was definitely always a political wedge issue, good for carving out a base of voters.  If immigrant labor was always a "societal problem"...I mean, why did societies have them there in the first place? These immigrants, by definition, would always be outnumbered by whatever population they're moving to. Whichever society we talk about obviously had a use for them,   

Societies do not generally have them in the first place. It is a historical exception to have mass immigration, let alone mass immigration from wildly different ethnicities and cultures.

 

Quote

That's a hot take. Why do we need high earner immigrants?

Math.

Low/no skilled laborers are a net negative on the government coffers. They suck up funds in the present and create liabilities in the future.

We need people who can actually finance the government spending, not accelerate the clusterfluck.

Quote

We're Americans - we're already earners. 70% of our GDP is consumption. Which kinda connects to our addiction to illegal immigration and low wage workers...the cost of consumables needs to be kept low so Americans can happily buy more things. Maybe your definition of "makers and takers" is skewed by the political outcome you want?

Relative to the rest of the world, yes, Americans make a lot more than the majority of the world’s population which is mostly found in Asia and Africa. Do we want to be more like China, India, or Nigeria?

American consumption in large part comes from imports, because as you’ve already pointed out, American wages are relatively high. Hence globalization and labor arbitrage.

Quote

Which is funny, because typically a bunch of very Christian blue collar workers coming up through Texas, etc, would likely be a reliable red vote. But they (and their naturalized descendants) aren't getting invited to the club...because, reasons.

Typically, no, they definitely are not reliable red voters here or even in their own countries. It’s almost like — and bear with me here — they are a completely different people with a completely different culture, and they don’t magically change everything once they cross an invisible line on a map.

Imagine that!

1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said:

You are the one making it political, not me. But yeah, my stance in immigration is too pander votes for the LP. 😂😂😂

Aside from the economics argument , I live and work in the real world and realize the value of entry level and low skilled workers. Without them, very few businesses would survive. It’s a circular proposition, your highly skilled work force and low skilled workforce need each other and are equally important for the bottom line of an organization. 
 

I’m speaking of the policy as espoused by Chucky. It’s the only reason it’s even a debate publicly.

Yes, of course the economy needs dishwashers and public school teachers. But we don’t need 11 million new ones. And we certainly can’t afford them.

30 minutes ago, TEW said:

We need people who can actually finance the government spending, not accelerate the clusterfluck.

 

What an odd statement coming from an avowed Accelerationist.

11 minutes ago, TEW said:

Societies do not generally have them in the first place. It is a historical exception to have mass immigration, let alone mass immigration from wildly different ethnicities and cultures.

Firstly, societies not having immigrants is just plain inaccurate. But also - "wildly different" how? 

Quote

Relative to the rest of the world, yes, Americans make a lot more than the majority of the world’s population which is mostly found in Asia and Africa. Do we want to be more like China, India, or Nigeria?

American consumption in large part comes from imports, because as you’ve already pointed out, American wages are relatively high. Hence globalization and labor arbitrage.

I think you've created those options of being China, India, or Nigeria. I'd imagine they all want to be us. The point I dont want to get distracted from is, our consumer-heavy economy is propped up by the low wage worker.  I find these anti-immigration arguments to be laser focused on the immigrants, as if they're some evil force barging through the gates. No, they're invited here to provide low wage work to keep costs lower. If you (we) were serious about solving this "crisis," the focus of your anger would the American-owned companies that pay them. No pay, no reason to make a dangerous and illegal trek to a foreign country, away from your home and everything familiar. But we put a bullseye on the evil immigrant with $2 in their pocket rather than the companies making money from them. 

 You mention 1924...okay, so you have a country complaining about the ills of immigration for a century, throughout changes of politics and parties.  Ya know, it kinda seems like we dont WANT to solve the issue. We just want to USE the issue.  And I dont wanna hear about the "woke" liberals of the 1920's. We're profiting off of this. That's what keeps the pipeline moving.

Quote

Typically, no, they definitely are not reliable red voters here or even in their own countries. It’s almost like — and bear with me here — they are a completely different people with a completely different culture, and they don’t magically change everything once they cross an invisible line on a map.

Imagine that!

I get the impression that you need to play them up as some entirely separate species to justify your feelings about immigrants. Maybe I spent too many years in Brooklyn, but I look out my window and see parents of different backgrounds waiting for the school bus with their kids. No one is casting spells or sacrificing a goat to their gods.  

 

11 minutes ago, Lloyd said:

 

I get the impression that you need to play them up as some entirely separate species to justify your feelings about immigrants. Maybe I spent too many years in Brooklyn, but I look out my window and see parents of different backgrounds waiting for the school bus with their kids. No one is casting spells or sacrificing a goat to their gods.  

 

this may be true, but in TEW's eyes, they will always be inferior intellectually, culturally and evolutionally. one step away from climbing trees and flinging sheet at passerby's. 

3 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

I try to stick to the topic and not engage in your games.

Try harder

1 hour ago, TEW said:

I’m speaking of the policy as espoused by Chucky. It’s the only reason it’s even a debate publicly.

Yes, of course the economy needs dishwashers and public school teachers. But we don’t need 11 million new ones. And we certainly can’t afford them.

Then go argue that BS with Chucky and the other boogymen you fear. 

No one is saying we should let 11 million immigrants in at one time. Save that straw man for someone else. 

I would rather refer to the restaurant owner on whether they need dishwashers or not. They probably know more about their needs than some central planning politician. But I lean more towards free markets than the extremists on the right. 

1 hour ago, VanHammersly said:

What an odd statement coming from an avowed Accelerationist.

He’s a walking contradiction. 
 

doesn’t believe in a god, but afraid to call himself an atheist. 
 

free market conservative with libertarian values, but in favor more government if it means keeping the rubes in their place. 

26 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

Try harder

I am. Someday I will scroll by all of your irrelevant posts, which will be most. 

3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

I am. Someday I will scroll by all of your irrelevant posts, which will be most. 

That's always an option. One I'd even recommend to you.

 

16 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

Then go argue that BS with Chucky and the other boogymen you fear. 

No one is saying we should let 11 million immigrants in at one time. Save that straw man for someone else. 

I would rather refer to the restaurant owner on whether they need dishwashers or not. They probably know more about their needs than some central planning politician. But I lean more towards free markets than the extremists on the right. 

Free markets have been telling us forever what they need -- more high skilled labor, particularly engineers. We need to reshape our legal immigration policy to actually meet the needs of our workforce, and that would mean prioritizing highly educated applicants in desired fields. The smartest thing we could do right now, as tech layoffs are happening, is to remove the rule that people on work visas need to find a new job in 60 days. Sending those people back after training them (most went to college here) would be monumentally stupid (so of course, that is what we will do). 

As for lower skilled labor, I've always supported the following:

1. Strict enforcement and punishment for employers that hire illegals

2. No government benefits of ANY kind for illegals (welfare, Obamacare, drivers licenses, etc.)

3. For the people here that are working, grant them some kind of provisional status (not citizenship) -- have a job and don't break the law= you get to stay

4. Hire more judges to clear the backlog of asylum claims

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Free markets have been telling us forever what they need -- more high skilled labor, particularly engineers. We need to reshape our legal immigration policy to actually meet the needs of our workforce, and that would mean prioritizing highly educated applicants in desired fields. The smartest thing we could do right now, as tech layoffs are happening, is to remove the rule that people on work visas need to find a new job in 60 days. Sending those people back after training them (most went to college here) would be monumentally stupid (so of course, that is what we will do). 

As for lower skilled labor, I've always supported the following:

1. Strict enforcement and punishment for employers that hire illegals

2. No government benefits of ANY kind for illegals (welfare, Obamacare, drivers licenses, etc.)

3. For the people here that are working, grant them some kind of provisional status (not citizenship) -- have a job and don't break the law= you get to stay

4. Hire more judges to clear the backlog of asylum claims

I’m not arguing that we don’t need more high skilled works as well but that’s not what my argument with TEW is about. 
 

I totally agree with every provision on your list for low skilled labor. We don’t have to let everyone that comes here to work become a permanent citizen. If it was a easier process, I believe circular migration would make a comeback. I would extend number 2 to most foreign workers though being here legally would open doors illegals should not have access to. 

Just now, Tnt4philly said:

I’m not arguing that we don’t need more high skilled works as well but that’s not what my argument with TEW is about. 
 

I totally agree with every provision on your list for low skilled labor. We don’t have to let everyone that comes here to work become a permanent citizen. If it was a easier process, I believe circular migration would make a comeback. I would extend number 2 to most foreign workers though being here legally would open doors illegals should not have access to. 

Honestly, Bush's guest worker idea wasn't terrible. I just can't get on board with granting full citizenship to those who broke the law coming here. The Democrats should drop that and agree to a legal status only. The kids will be citizens since they are born here, but we shouldn't reward lawlessness. 

F illegals. 

1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said:

I’m not arguing that we don’t need more high skilled works as well but that’s not what my argument with TEW is about. 
 

I totally agree with every provision on your list for low skilled labor. We don’t have to let everyone that comes here to work become a permanent citizen. If it was a easier process, I believe circular migration would make a comeback. I would extend number 2 to most foreign workers though being here legally would open doors illegals should not have access to. 

Immigrants working here legally would be paying the taxes for those government benefits… how would they share access to anyone other than their kids/dependents?

Just a reminder, border crime is not way up, and most illegals come in legally, then don't leave.

15 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Just a reminder, border crime is not way up, and most illegals come in legally, then don't leave.

 

44 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Just a reminder, border crime is not way up, and most illegals come in legally, then don't leave.

So what you are saying is they aren't illegal because they came in legally even though they break the law by overstaying their visa?

38 minutes ago, BBE said:

So what you are saying is they aren't illegal because they came in legally even though they break the law by overstaying their visa?

Is the inside of your head like a pachinko machine? What I said bounced around and came out looking like that?

I said that most illegals (a majority) enter this country LEGALLY (not slipping across the southern border) and then BECOME illegal by not leaving.

I sure hope that makes it clear enough. I don't have many more caps I can legally type today. (Thanks Brandon!)

5 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

Then go argue that BS with Chucky and the other boogymen you fear. 

No one is saying we should let 11 million immigrants in at one time. Save that straw man for someone else. 

I would rather refer to the restaurant owner on whether they need dishwashers or not. They probably know more about their needs than some central planning politician. But I lean more towards free markets than the extremists on the right. 

You are literally arguing to make illegal immigration legal. What do you think will happen with such a policy?

53 minutes ago, TEW said:

You are literally arguing to make illegal immigration legal. What do you think will happen with such a policy?

No, I’m literally arguing to make legal immigration/migration/ work visa easier so that there is less incentive to come here illegally.

I believe that it should be easier for anyone, who is not a criminal, to come here and work legally if there is a job here for them, period. 

15 hours ago, Toastrel said:

Is the inside of your head like a pachinko machine? What I said bounced around and came out looking like that?

I said that most illegals (a majority) enter this country LEGALLY (not slipping across the southern border) and then BECOME illegal by not leaving.

I sure hope that makes it clear enough. I don't have many more caps I can legally type today. (Thanks Brandon!)

Thanks for the clarification that they are in fact illegal. 

23 minutes ago, BBE said:

Thanks for the clarification that they are in fact illegal. 

Yeah, I really hid that fact by calling them illegals.