Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:28 pm UTC

Yeah, and the Obama administration straight gave children to human traffickers.

This was fixed by HHS keeping more records to better make sure folks were actually going to relations. This was, of course, a republican initiative.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:35 pm UTC

The ACLU wrote:Do the courts require family separation?

Absolutely not — despite the claims of GOP leadership to the contrary. Both House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Chuck Grassley have blamed family separation on the courts, specifically a decades-old court agreement (known as the Flores settlement) which established protections for children to prevent their indefinite detention in unlicensed facilities.

Getting rid of the protections in the Flores settlement would only further the administration’s goal of being able to indefinitely imprison families. But ending family separation doesn’t require family prisons. The Trump administration knows full well that alternatives exist — because it went out of its way to sabotage them.

In June 2017, the administration ended the Family Case Management Program, which allowed families to be placed into a program, together, that connected them with a case manager and legal orientation that ensured they understood how to apply for asylum and attend immigration court proceedings.

The program had a 99.6 percent appearance rate at immigration court hearings for those enrolled in the program. It’s not only a more humane alternative to family prisons; it’s far less costly for taxpayers.

Despite that success, the administration chose to end this program only a few months after it was first reported that Kelly — then-Secretary of Homeland Security — was considering family separation as a deterrent strategy.

Does Paul Ryan’s bill end family separation?

This week House Republicans will vote on a bill that purports to protect Dreamers and end family separation but does neither. Known as the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2018, the bill would put DACA-eligible individuals on a long and convoluted path to citizenship — which is all subject to whether Trump gets his border wall. The changes in the bill would make it harder to apply for asylum and includes dangerous provisions making it easier to jail children and families.

The bill would not do anything to stop Sessions’ zero-tolerance prosecutions — which is the main driver of family separation.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:18 pm UTC


User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:24 pm UTC

Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1315
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:26 pm UTC

Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:32 pm UTC

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it, and I'll be happy about it if it doesn't just mean they'll indefinitely detain families together.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:34 pm UTC

So... how should border patrol go about detaining illegal immigrants?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:39 pm UTC

Why are you starting from the assumption that they have to be detained?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:47 pm UTC

Because I'm working from the assumption that we don't want an open border policy. If we want open borders, that changes things...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:51 pm UTC

False dichotomy. The choices are not "detain babies in cages" and "let everyone in with no procedure or paperwork of any kind".

Regarding the idea that immigrants are taking anyone's jobs:
Screenshot_20180620-134657.png
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:04 pm UTC

given that immigrants in camps are paid $1/day for their labor and slaves in American prisons make a lot of "made in america" goods for pennies an hour, anyone genuinely concerned about depressing wages would be concerned about reforming if not abolishing prisons (for immigrants and americans both) but no, it's more convenient to scapegoat brown people.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:09 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So... how should border patrol go about detaining illegal immigrants?

gmalivuk wrote:
The ACLU wrote:In June 2017, the administration ended the Family Case Management Program, which allowed families to be placed into a program, together, that connected them with a case manager and legal orientation that ensured they understood how to apply for asylum and attend immigration court proceedings.

The program had a 99.6 percent appearance rate at immigration court hearings for those enrolled in the program. It’s not only a more humane alternative to family prisons; it’s far less costly for taxpayers.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:04 pm UTC

Well it's a good thing Trump is a spineless idiot who only does what he thinks will make him popular. I suspect that's the only reason he said he'll sign this order.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Regarding the idea that immigrants are taking anyone's jobs:
Screenshot_20180620-134657.png


That's assuming you work for a company. If you own your own car repair shop, and a Polish guy moves in to town and opens up his own car repair shop and is willing to repair the cars for half the labor costs, you are going to lose customers.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:11 pm UTC

It'll be interesting to see if someone files a lawsuit saying his executive order violates the July 2015 court order about children remaining in custody beyond 20 days.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:21 pm UTC

Children have already been held longer than that.

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Regarding the idea that immigrants are taking anyone's jobs:
Screenshot_20180620-134657.png


That's assuming you work for a company. If you own your own car repair shop, and a Polish guy moves in to town and opens up his own car repair shop and is willing to repair the cars for half the labor costs, you are going to lose customers.

If someone in this thread has lost their independent business like that, they're free to make the point themselves. I was responding to the whining here about H1-B visas.

And an independent business owner is far more likely to be put out of business by a large corporation that can afford to undercut market prices than by another independent business owner.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:45 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The choices are not "detain babies in cages" and "let everyone in with no procedure or paperwork of any kind.

No. The choices are "let everyone in without paperwork of any kind" or "detain those who have improper paperwork or none at all." If we don't want a completely open border, people will need to be detained.

If they are detained, they either have to be detained in a jail or another jail-like facility. If they aren't detained, we have to trust that they'll appear at their immigration hearings. If they were attempting to sneak into the country illegally in the first place, it's fair to assume they won't appear for their hearings, and once they're released into the general population, finding them after a missed hearing becomes more difficult and more expensive.

Building jail-like facilities to house anyone being detained for entering the country illegally while they await their immigration hearings would also be expensive, and it does nothing to ease the problem of illegal immigration in the first place.

Most of the illegal immigration stems from a desire or need to leave a bad situation in one country for the potential to have a better situation in a new country, but that's where most of the legal immigration stems from, too. Lots of people seem to think it's the United States' responsibility to make other countries better places for their citizens. Lots of other people seem to think it's the United States' responsibility to make the U.S. a better country for its own citizens first.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Children have already been held longer than that.

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Regarding the idea that immigrants are taking anyone's jobs:
Screenshot_20180620-134657.png


That's assuming you work for a company. If you own your own car repair shop, and a Polish guy moves in to town and opens up his own car repair shop and is willing to repair the cars for half the labor costs, you are going to lose customers.

If someone in this thread has lost their independent business like that, they're free to make the point themselves. I was responding to the whining here about H1-B visas.

And an independent business owner is far more likely to be put out of business by a large corporation that can afford to undercut market prices than by another independent business owner.


H1-B visas are issued by sponsoring companies, and if the employee quits or is fired, gbye to the visa. Therefore, H1-Bs ought to be largely irrelevant to independent small businesses. As someone who owns one, I know of literally no other small business owner that happens to have one. I suppose it is technically possible that someone could work a corporate job by day, and start a small business by night, but for the most part this does not seem to be a problem at all.

The hypothetical Polish chap would be most likely a traditional immigrant. We don't really have much in the way of illegal immigration from Poland, and I don't think we have a flood of asylum seekers from there. So, any such immigrant is basically just like anyone else, and largely irrelevant to any of the immigration issues being discussed here.

As a related hypothetical, what prevents a native American from deciding his time is worth half of yours, and going into business on that basis?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8291
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:55 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:No. The choices are "let everyone in without paperwork of any kind" or "detain those who have improper paperwork or none at all." If we don't want a completely open border, people will need to be detained.

Wrong, and you're talking out of your ass. How about adopting one of the alternatives detailed in this report, which cost a fraction of what detention does and reach an appearance rate of 99%? It's very nice for you to say "Oh there's no way" but ICE has been using alternatives to detention and they've been proven to be incredibly effective and cost-efficient.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:59 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:
If we don't want a completely open border, people will need to be detained.

If you're not going to read at least a few posts in the thread you're trying to participate in, I don't see any need to take your attempted points at all seriously.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:06 pm UTC

Well, Trump signed an order:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... eparation/

It stops family separations; now they'll be detained together. Trump's idea of morality is seeking the maximum cruelty that is publicly acceptable.

EDIT:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumps-ploy

According to The New York Times, the President will sign an executive order allowing children to be detained indefinitely with their parents. The problem is that that violates a 1997 consent decree saying that you can’t detain/imprison children for more than 20 days (technically what’s currently happening isn’t detention). It straight up violates that order. So what will almost inevitably happen is that a court will step in, say you can’t do that and then Trump will announce that the judge is forcing him to keep separating families.


Looks like this might just be a ploy to keep separating families.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:40 pm UTC

Oh, it's even worse than that. Note that the EO calls for *SecDef* to provide and construct facilities for this. In addition to everything else, this looks an awful lot like an attempt to weaken the Posse Comitatus Act.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:50 pm UTC


User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6589
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:00 pm UTC

Yabllo wrote:No. The choices are "let everyone in without paperwork of any kind" or "detain those who have improper paperwork or none at all." If we don't want a completely open border, people will need to be detained.

I'd like to ask if you work for the Onion, but that would be an ad-hominum attack that is almost completely unworthy of this board.

There are actually a myriad of possibilities. Just think for a moment what the possibilities are for somebody committing any other crime, such as jaywalking, smoking a joint, petty theft, speeding, filing a false income tax return, or embezzlement. They can either be detained, or not detained. Most of these criminals are not detained.

It is certainly possible to have a zero-tolerance policy towards jaywalking, embezzling, or filing a false income tax return, but not having such a policy does not mean we have a completely tolerant attitude towards criminals. Similarly, not having a zero-tolerance policy towards families fleeing atrocities and taking the Statue of Liberty at its word does not mean having completely open borders. Just thinking such a thing is so far beyond reason that I don't have a clue in hell how to respond.

There are also many forms of detainment, from solitary confinement to ankle bracelets, and there are many forms of ensuring that non-detained peole will appear at a hearing, from ankle bracelets to facebook data. To, you know, actually trusting people.

To that last point, can you tell me (with sources) what percentage of illegal immigrants who are caught and released (to a hearing) fail to show up? And of those how many actually disappear?

Yablo wrote:Lots of people seem to think it's the United States' responsibility to make other countries better places for their citizens. Lots of other people seem to think it's the United States' responsibility to make the U.S. a better country for its own citizens first.
And they are both right. For different reasons. It is the (ethical) price of being on top at the expense of the shitholes.

No, we can't just open the borders or we'll drown in a race to the bottom. But deterring immigration by becoming a country nobody wants to immigrate to isn't a solution either.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:50 am UTC

Why bother with extended detainment at all? I mean, if you aren't going to bother with a trial, why not just immediately transport the people back to Mexico?

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:40 am UTC

When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:18 am UTC

I just had a thought. If trump just turns America into a total shithole despot then he will solve the immigration issue. Noone will want to come here.

It's really rather simple.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:31 am UTC

That's pretty much Trump's strategy, aka self-deportation. The idea is that if the police harass Hispanics, and then treat anyone who can't prove they are here legally as horribly as possible, then illegal immigrants won't want to stay. That's what he campaigned on, and you voted for.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:45 am UTC

It's far more sinister than you think.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10013
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:39 am UTC

oh,..sigh... The Questions....
How many more publicity stunts will that Orange Jack-Ass pull before November?
How many lies about his publicity stunts will he Loudly Declare in November?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:06 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Probably not a coincidence that every rich and well off country develops fairly strict immigration limitations.


This line of argument assumes that your goal is to increase the power and wealth of the United States and its citizens specifically, rather than to, say, achieve the maximum possible reduction in the number of people living in poverty, regardless of what nationality those people happen to hold.

That's a pretty bloody big assumption, and one that I suspect isn't being made by everyone in this thread, hence the arguing at cross-purposes.


In practice, most countries seem to optimize for their national interest first. Oh, sure, they might also prioritize the well being of other citizens, but it's generally not entirely equal.


Yes, clearly that's true in practice, however I'm talking about the ethical foundations of the people talking here. I suspect that several of us don't give the the idea and practice of nationhood any moral weight in their thinking at all. I know that's true of me. Practically, nations are what we have to work with, at least for the moment, but it's not at all clear to me that the US (or UK, lest I be accused of having no skin in the game) should always prioritise it's own interests at the expense of people who are not citizens.

Tl;Dr: I think some people in this thread are arguing from explicitly anti-nationalist positions, which helps explain why we are entirely unpersuaded by arguments that appeal to the national interest of the United States.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:30 am UTC

Quercus wrote:Tl;Dr: I think some people in this thread are arguing from explicitly anti-nationalist positions, which helps explain why we are entirely unpersuaded by arguments that appeal to the national interest of the United States.


But you expect them to be persuaded by moral arguments about how they should have to suffer in order to help others?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6331
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:43 am UTC

Who is having to suffer to help others?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Quercus wrote:Tl;Dr: I think some people in this thread are arguing from explicitly anti-nationalist positions, which helps explain why we are entirely unpersuaded by arguments that appeal to the national interest of the United States.


But you expect them to be persuaded by moral arguments about how they should have to suffer in order to help others?


No, I don't, hence the arguments that there are ways of being less barbarous without negatively affecting the US economy. However, those who are anti-immigration in this thread shouldn't expect to persuade the rest of us with appeals to economic cost (unless you can present good evidence that the cost is very severe), because I suspect that we'll just shrug and say it's worth it.

Edit: I think part of why I feel this way is that not all money is equally valuable. I rate very poor people getting slightly richer (which provides a massive boost to standard of living) a lot higher than moderately rich people getting slightly poorer (which causes only a slight drop in standard of living).

techblogger911
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:23 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby techblogger911 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:40 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:False dichotomy. The choices are not "detain babies in cages" and "let everyone in with no procedure or paperwork of any kind".

Regarding the idea that immigrants are taking anyone's jobs:
Screenshot_20180620-134657.png


I agree with Dans, I mean if someone could potentially do better than someone else then would you choose the deserving candidate or someone who is native,speaks native the language proficiently?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1936
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:59 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Quercus wrote:Tl;Dr: I think some people in this thread are arguing from explicitly anti-nationalist positions, which helps explain why we are entirely unpersuaded by arguments that appeal to the national interest of the United States.
But you expect them to be persuaded by moral arguments about how they should have to suffer in order to help others?
Actually, I expect anyone who's got himself into a position of being paid £100,000 a year to be white and male and give precisely no fucks about any moral arguments suggesting he ought to give 0.1% of that to sponsor a whole class of school children in some West African shithole. I do think it'd do them more good than it'd cost him, it'd make the world a better place for a lot of people beyond the ones actually using school books bought by him and he could save that money by eating at a good restaurant instead of a famous one just once, but I don't expect him to give a fuck.

He's richer than me, too, which to a lot of people means he's right.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26546
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:28 pm UTC

Even if you are a shithead who cares about money more than people, the economic cost of immigration is less than criminally prosecuting and indefinitely detaining everyone who tries to enter the country.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:57 pm UTC

Hate to re-hash something from 2016 but I thought the impact on the American economy from immigration (both legal and illegal) was pretty settled. And I think it's fair to claim that illegal immigration (in particular) disproportionately impacts the lower income brackets due to the skill levels of the people coming in. I don't think a civil engineer is going to be hurt by an illegal immigrant coming to America. In fact, they might actually benefit financially in that their firms can now utilize lower cost construction labor on their projects.

But I think this politico article handles the topic nicely.

This second message might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants.

Both low- and high-skilled natives are affected by the influx of immigrants. But because a disproportionate percentage of immigrants have few skills, it is low-skilled American workers, including many blacks and Hispanics, who have suffered most from this wage dip. The monetary loss is sizable. The typical high school dropout earns about $25,000 annually. According to census data, immigrants admitted in the past two decades lacking a high school diploma have increased the size of the low-skilled workforce by roughly 25 percent. As a result, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable group dropped by between $800 and $1,500 each year.


-Of course, Pelosi would tell you that $1000 is just crumbs anyways. I guess she doesn't know that a thousand bucks covers rent for another month.

But that’s only one side of the story. Somebody’s lower wage is always somebody else’s higher profit. In this case, immigration redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants—from the employee to the employer. And the additional profits are so large that the economic pie accruing to all natives actually grows. I estimate the current “immigration surplus”—the net increase in the total wealth of the native population—to be about$50 billion annually. But behind that calculation is a much larger shift from one group of Americans to another: The total wealth redistribution from the native losers to the native winners is enormous, roughly a half-trillion dollars a year. Immigrants, too, gain substantially; their total earnings far exceed what their income would have been had they not migrated.


Let me break that down. The immigrants status is brought upwards. But the low skilled workers that the immigrants now compete with are held at, or possibly below, the income levels they were at (or would have been at). The economy still moves along and that wealth is redistributed to the wealthiest individuals - to the tune of about a half-trillion dollars - per year.

Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.


George J. Borjas is professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of the forthcoming We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10272
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:03 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Actually, I expect anyone who's got himself into a position of being paid £100,000 a year to be white and male and give precisely no fucks about any moral arguments suggesting he ought to give 0.1% of that to sponsor a whole class of school children in some West African shithole. I do think it'd do them more good than it'd cost him, it'd make the world a better place for a lot of people beyond the ones actually using school books bought by him and he could save that money by eating at a good restaurant instead of a famous one just once, but I don't expect him to give a fuck.

He's richer than me, too, which to a lot of people means he's right.


That guy you describe is the guy that benefits from illegal immigration, and if anything his sociopathic arse would be advocating for more immigrants. It's not like the people being detained are going to work as attorneys, engineers or doctors; their children might've if they weren't being traumatized constantly, which is the saddest part of the story. That famous restaurant would be slightly more expensive if the line cooks had to be paid a decent wage.


@trpmb6
So what you are saying is, you could bring in immigrants, tax the wealthiest by about $300,000,000,000, give that money to poor Americans, and everyone including the rich and immigrants and poor Americans would still be better off?

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:18 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Let me break that down. The immigrants status is brought upwards. But the low skilled workers that the immigrants now compete with are held at, or possibly below, the income levels they were at (or would have been at). The economy still moves along and that wealth is redistributed to the wealthiest individuals - to the tune of about a half-trillion dollars - per year.


That's fundamentally a problem with taxation (i.e. not doing it enough to the rich) and social policy, not a problem with immigration. Though I will admit that immigration interacts with those other policy failings in unfortunate ways (and also provides a convenient diversion away from them - "it's immigrants that are keeping you poor, nothing to do with us at all").


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iamspen and 17 guests