Non-wall immigration reform... (1 Viewer)

[sho nuff]

As challenged by Joe...here is a topic for discussion.  Please keep it cool in here.

I believe President Trump has made any new border barrier of any kind a toxic issue and one the left won't agree on...in addition to it being unpopular among voters, its unpopular among border representatives.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46815569

In reality...I don't consider it a top 5 problem in this country at all...but because Trump has pushed it to the front over other issues (IMO healthcare is still #1 and unresolved...but another thread on that would be appropriate or keeping with the ACA thread and ideas from guys like Matty).

So what to do about immigration?

I think making DACA actual voted upon law rather than the EO from Obama that will always give a president the issue to use as leverage.  I would love for that to be more like the DREAM Act and offer a path to citizenship...but it seems one step at a time right now.  I don't think congress as its currently constructed would be for that path (mainly I don't think it would even make it to the floor of the senate).  But Id love to see that path for those here with no convictions of violent crimes.  I limit it to that, because I think we often call people criminals for deportation for minor issues.  And I would rather not this delve into that type of things.

I believe we must also push for more legal immigration rather than the current push for less legal options under this administration.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/12/donald-trump-cutting-legal-immigration/692447002/

This would include...but not be limited to:

Better/more staffing at legal ports of entry...more immigration judges to take on the cases...and expedited processes for those that can be quickly vetted.

I am open to more ideas...and I do have more myself but didn't want to make a big post of all just my thoughts (and working on a quick time schedule here before getting dinner ready).

So...what are your thoughts for non-wall options for immigration and border security (things like the current fencing/wall...agents...drones....)?

 

[sho nuff]

 We can never stop illegal immigration as long as the grass is really greener on the other side.  The irony is more and more people will overstay when they can afford to buy plane tickets.

Thank you for the response.  I agree we can never stop illegal immigration.  And that isn’t the purpose of the thread.  What ideas do we have or have we seen that you would support for current immigrants here and those trying to come here.

 

[KCitons]

Fundamentally, if there is no agreement on whether or not there is a problem, then I don't think we can agree on a viable solution. As many people have said, we can't stop people crossing the border if the desire is there. And we can't stop people from overstaying their visa because of that same desire. 

I'm not 100% sold on building a wall as long as other solutions solve what I believe the problem to be. Which is that each person should follow the same rules to enter this country. It leads to order and accountability, while also allowing people that have came here legally the protections and benefits of being an American citizen.

I'm also inclined to look outside our borders to see what we can do to make people want to live in their own country. Why do they choose to risk their life to come to this country? How can we expand the American dream to other countries?

 

[sho nuff]

I think the GOP should be able to negotiate policy changes around legal immigration.

Just the GOP?  This seems to be a non starter.  Why would it just be for the GOO to negotiate?  Can you clarify?

 

[sho nuff]

Fundamentally, if there is no agreement on whether or not there is a problem, then I don't think we can agree on a viable solution. As many people have said, we can't stop people crossing the border if the desire is there. And we can't stop people from overstaying their visa because of that same desire. 

I'm not 100% sold on building a wall as long as other solutions solve what I believe the problem to be. Which is that each person should follow the same rules to enter this country. It leads to order and accountability, while also allowing people that have came here legally the protections and benefits of being an American citizen.

I'm also inclined to look outside our borders to see what we can do to make people want to live in their own country. Why do they choose to risk their life to come to this country? How can we expand the American dream to other countries?

For the kinder and gentler sho nuff I will read your posts in this thread.

I like the idea of the last paragraph.  I think a current push to also cut foreign aid is counterproductive to this.  In addition we get into some touchy subjects about nation building and meddling into the affairs of other countries.  I’d have to look more into it...and I’m all for foreign aid...but think beyond that much more detail is needed.

 

[KCitons]

For the kinder and gentler sho nuff I will read your posts in this thread.

I like the idea of the last paragraph.  I think a current push to also cut foreign aid is counterproductive to this.  In addition we get into some touchy subjects about nation building and meddling into the affairs of other countries.  I’d have to look more into it...and I’m all for foreign aid...but think beyond that much more detail is needed.

This isn't just about aid. I'm not suggesting we throw money at the countries these people are coming from. As you said, it's more detailed than that. While money is important, so is infrastructure, jobs, freedoms, etc. Unfortunately, barring an invasion, I don't think it would ever happen. And I haven't been a fan of any war in the last 75 years. 

What we are left with is trying to accommodate the people that want to come to this country. I'm all for increasing border security to make people come in through designated entry points. I mentioned in another thread the idea of having a border city that would allow us to house and process immigrants that come through points of entry as they await processing. They could be responsible for maintaining the community during that time. It would include government offices to expedite the process, hospitals to make sure they are healthy, schools to maintain education and develop skills. After a short time, they are better equipped to integrate legally into our country and we have better control over the situation. 

 

[Slapdash]

As challenged by Joe...here is a topic for discussion.  Please keep it cool in here.

I believe President Trump has made any new border barrier of any kind a toxic issue and one the left won't agree on...in addition to it being unpopular among voters, its unpopular among border representatives.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46815569

In reality...I don't consider it a top 5 problem in this country at all...but because Trump has pushed it to the front over other issues (IMO healthcare is still #1 and unresolved...but another thread on that would be appropriate or keeping with the ACA thread and ideas from guys like Matty).

So what to do about immigration?

I think making DACA actual voted upon law rather than the EO from Obama that will always give a president the issue to use as leverage.  I would love for that to be more like the DREAM Act and offer a path to citizenship...but it seems one step at a time right now.  I don't think congress as its currently constructed would be for that path (mainly I don't think it would even make it to the floor of the senate).  But Id love to see that path for those here with no convictions of violent crimes.  I limit it to that, because I think we often call people criminals for deportation for minor issues.  And I would rather not this delve into that type of things.

I believe we must also push for more legal immigration rather than the current push for less legal options under this administration.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/12/donald-trump-cutting-legal-immigration/692447002/

This would include...but not be limited to:

Better/more staffing at legal ports of entry...more immigration judges to take on the cases...and expedited processes for those that can be quickly vetted.

I am open to more ideas...and I do have more myself but didn't want to make a big post of all just my thoughts (and working on a quick time schedule here before getting dinner ready).

So...what are your thoughts for non-wall options for immigration and border security (things like the current fencing/wall...agents...drones....)?

I don't think immigration is a problem.  It is a desirable part of a growing democratic republic, which I want our country to be.  There are issues on the boarder with illegal immigration in a way that we can't monitor who comes into our country.  I want to fix that.  I want Dreamers to be legally protected by the Congress.  I want to make it easier for asylum seekers to come here.  I want to make it easier for high-skilled immigrants of any country to come here.

 

[sho nuff]

I don't think immigration is a problem.  It is a desirable part of a growing democratic republic, which I want our country to be.  There are issues on the boarder with illegal immigration in a way that we can't monitor who comes into our country.  I want to fix that.  I want Dreamers to be legally protected by the Congress.  I want to make it easier for asylum seekers to come here.  I want to make it easier for high-skilled immigrants of any country to come here.

What are the chances of getting that type of reform?

 

[Slapdash]

What are the chances of getting that type of reform?

Seems pretty common sense to me.  Many people in the GOP have advocated similar over the years. 

 

[sho nuff]

Seems pretty common sense to me.  Many people in the GOP have advocated similar over the years. 

I’d agree it does and would like to see that pursued.  I think what we are seeing currently is that the chances of that change is minimal at the moment.

 

[timschochet]

The United States has had a very uneven history with regard to immigration. In very general terms:

1800-1840 pro immigration

1840-1880 anti immigration

1880-1920 pro immigration

1920- 1965 anti immigration 

1965-2015 pro immigration

2016- anti immigration 

So now we’re entering a nativist, anti immigration phase. We’ve had some before. It usually is a result of economic and racial anxiety. No way to predict how long it will last, but while it does, I doubt we’re going to get a lot of positive stuff accomplished. 

 

[Snorkelson]

This isn't just about aid. I'm not suggesting we throw money at the countries these people are coming from. As you said, it's more detailed than that. While money is important, so is infrastructure, jobs, freedoms, etc. Unfortunately, barring an invasion, I don't think it would ever happen. And I haven't been a fan of any war in the last 75 years. 

What we are left with is trying to accommodate the people that want to come to this country. I'm all for increasing border security to make people come in through designated entry points. I mentioned in another thread the idea of having a border city that would allow us to house and process immigrants that come through points of entry as they await processing. They could be responsible for maintaining the community during that time. It would include government offices to expedite the process, hospitals to make sure they are healthy, schools to maintain education and develop skills. After a short time, they are better equipped to integrate legally into our country and we have better control over the situation. 

Corruption in our democracy is bouyed by the fact that we have an enormous economy. In other countries when the people with power grift it has real repercussions like enabling gang violence because there is a lack of jobs, police, and other stuff that the money isn’t going to. 

My opinion here, I don’t have a reference to link. I would love it if we could get together with all of North America and work together to help all these countries get stability. 

One way to put a dagger into some of this would be to simply legalize pot. It would take away a large revenue stream that would have an effect on the stability of the black market economy these gangs and drug organizations use. They make millions, billions maybe- hard to expect a wall to stop them. It would also inject that money into our economy- money that is being spent regardless, as lots of people smoke pot here. Again, just my theory. Find ways to disrupt their revenue. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Nice @sho nuff - good on you and @jon_mx - 

 

[AAABatteries]

I think I asked this during another immigration discussion but I could be misremembering and/or don’t remember the answer but what other country has a good model that people like?  Probably tough as we are pretty unique but there has to be some ideas we can leverage (if we aren’t already).

 

[AAABatteries]

I don't think immigration is a problem.  It is a desirable part of a growing democratic republic, which I want our country to be.  There are issues on the boarder with illegal immigration in a way that we can't monitor who comes into our country.  I want to fix that.  I want Dreamers to be legally protected by the Congress.  I want to make it easier for asylum seekers to come here.  I want to make it easier for high-skilled immigrants of any country to come here.

I think I agree with all of this but just to play the other side - what do you say to people who feel like their job has been taken?  How do you convince that person that your idea is still a good one?  We can use me as an example - I work in IT, my co-worker who is the nicest guy I know is an H1B worker.  My company has let people go and yet he remains.  

Just to reiterate - I personally have no issue with this but I can absolutely see the other side and think it’s important to have a good answer for it.

 

[Snorkelson]

Also, I wish Trump hadn’t promise a “big beautiful, powerful, concrete wall” because this could have easily been avoided if he could have simply pivoted to a virtual wall, which makes a lot more sense imo. We could also just pass legislation that takes away the ability to claim asylum if you don’t cross at a point of entry, perhaps there is some legitimate reason for this but I’m not seeing it. 

Unfortunately, we are about to witness a president poised to abuse his executive powers rather than push for any good immigration reform. All he says is “wall wall wall.” If dems proposed unlimited funding, “war on immigration” if you will, but with absolutely no wall, he’d pass. 

 

[Slapdash]

I think I agree with all of this but just to play the other side - what do you say to people who feel like their job has been taken?  How do you convince that person that your idea is still a good one?  We can use me as an example - I work in IT, my co-worker who is the nicest guy I know is an H1B worker.  My company has let people go and yet he remains.  

Just to reiterate - I personally have no issue with this but I can absolutely see the other side and think it’s important to have a good answer for it.

It is a tougher one for sure. I've worked with H1B holders and offshore resources both in the IT space and quantitative modeling.

In most cases I think companies are being penny-wise, pound foolish when they do this as a replacement.  Although what usually happens is they add these during an expansion, but target the layoffs at the higher cost employees.  Hard to question that logic if you're doing a function than can easily be replaced.

In other cases, it has been straight foolish as we are hiring cheaper resources when we really should just be automating the function.

I could point to the vast majority of economic research that immigration increases growth without harming wages, but I doubt it works in that type of personal/emotional situation.  Will do more thinking. 

 

[AAABatteries]

I could point to the vast majority of economic research that immigration increases growth without harming wages, but I doubt it works in that type of personal/emotional situation.  Will do more thinking. 

This is the key point- it does become emotional because it’s happening “to me”.  Logically we can point out the studies but if/when someone loses their job they won’t care.  Ultimately, life isn’t “fair” and some people will get hurt by immigration policies - but overall it’s still a good idea.  The greater good and all that.

 

[Slapdash]

This is the key point- it does become emotional because it’s happening “to me”.  Logically we can point out the studies but if/when someone loses their job they won’t care.  Ultimately, life isn’t “fair” and some people will get hurt by immigration policies - but overall it’s still a good idea.  The greater good and all that.

It is like trade in the fact that it creates broad gains but localized losers who feel left behind.  That is one reason I support a broader and more generous social safety net.  Whether that is BIG, Job Guarantee, or just plain old single payer.  We need to make it where losing a job isn't the end of the world for people in the way it is for many now.  Losing health care is often an unrecoverable double-whammy.  I worked with a guy who was diagnosed with Leukemia only six months after getting laid off at my old employer.  That is a devastating financial blow that many will not recover from.

As an aside, that guy has recovered and actually now works in the same department as me in another company.  Could automate his job in a week if management would allow it.  Never stop learning folks.

 

[timschochet]

For those of you who are truly concerned about illegal immigration- according to polling- this represents about 45% of the country, and includes almost all Republicans and conservatives (and quite a few independents and Democrats as well)- I think you are being manipulated. How can I prove this? Because the most effective way to reduce this “problem” would be to severely penalize employers who hire them. And the next elected official who proposes this idea will be the first. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

For those of you who are truly concerned about illegal immigration- according to polling- this represents about 45% of the country, and includes almost all Republicans and conservatives (and quite a few independents and Democrats as well)- I think you are being manipulated. How can I prove this? Because the most effective way to reduce this “problem” would be to severely penalize employers who hire them. And the next elected official who proposes this idea will be the first. 

You think people disliking having people sneak across the border is because of politicians manipulating them? That is fascinating to me.  

 

[timschochet]

You think people disliking having people sneak across the border is because of politicians manipulating them? That is fascinating to me.  

I didn’t say that. I didn’t say their concerns are because they’re being manipulated. I wrote that if they have those concerns they are being manipulated (just as many Latinos who demand a Path to Citizenship for undocumented immigrants are being manipulated by Democrats.) 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Trump ordered 15,000 new border and immigration officers — but got thousands of vacancies instead

In a sign of the difficulties, Customs and Border Protection allocated $60.7 million to Accenture Federal Services, a management consulting firm, as part of a $297-million contract to recruit, vet and hire 7,500 border officers over five years, but the company has produced only 33 new hires so far.

- The current administration has been supported in its efforts, but it's lacking decent management.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think making DACA actual voted upon law rather than the EO from Obama that will always give a president the issue to use as leverage.  I would love for that to be more like the DREAM Act and offer a path to citizenship...but it seems one step at a time right now.  I don't think congress as its currently constructed would be for that path (mainly I don't think it would even make it to the floor of the senate).  But Id love to see that path for those here with no convictions of violent crimes.  I limit it to that, because I think we often call people criminals for deportation for minor issues.  And I would rather not this delve into that type of things.

Maybe people should question if it was right to link amnesty issues with border security issues. On the one hand I see the point in having a master strategy that says this is how we are dealing with people here illegally and how we are going to act moving forward, but then again they are separate issues. Basically becaus of the Freedom Caucus everything has been held up.

 

[Mile High]

Trump ordered 15,000 new border and immigration officers — but got thousands of vacancies instead

- The current administration has been supported in its efforts, but it's lacking decent management.

It's just like all of the other new jobs that are being created on paper.  New jobs on paper are worthless if there aren't enough people to actually fill the jobs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This would include...but not be limited to:

Better/more staffing at legal ports of entry...more immigration judges to take on the cases...and expedited processes for those that can be quickly vetted.

I am open to more ideas...and I do have more myself but didn't want to make a big post of all just my thoughts (and working on a quick time schedule here before getting dinner ready).

So...what are your thoughts for non-wall options for immigration and border security (things like the current fencing/wall...agents...drones....)?

The ridiculous thing is that we already included fencing. The 2006 act still exists. DHS said x miles (like 714 IIRC) was needed and Congress and the administration, R & D, acted on that together. That has been done. Basically we have the 1965 INA which allows something like 800,000 people into the country, with a maximum of 12% from Mexico. I am not sure if that includes asylum applicants or not. But it has never seemed so particularly difficult for DHS or CBP or whoever to say we need so many men, so much equipment, so much technology, and yes whatever fencing in such and such places (which we may already have that piece) to make the 1965 INS a real, living thing. I'll never understand why such a policy is so difficult to develop. Obama was certainly not soft on immigration, clearly even a Democratic administration or Congress could develop that, so just do that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The United States has had a very uneven history with regard to immigration. In very general terms:

1800-1840 pro immigration

1840-1880 anti immigration

1880-1920 pro immigration

1920- 1965 anti immigration 

1965-2015 pro immigration

2016- anti immigration 

So now we’re entering a nativist, anti immigration phase. We’ve had some before. It usually is a result of economic and racial anxiety. No way to predict how long it will last, but while it does, I doubt we’re going to get a lot of positive stuff accomplished. 

Good job @sho nuff on this.

@timschochet in your opinion, can you dive more into what drives these pro and anti phases?

I have found it interesting the video clips from President Clinton and other Democrats.

From the 1995 State Of The Union:

https://cis.org/Krikorian/Bill-Clinton-Immigration-Hawk

All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.

For my Pro Trump friends, and I have quite a few, this is the thing they most commonly want to bring up when we talk about immigration. They ask "sounds a lot like Trump there and Dems gave him a standing ovation. What's up?"

 

[NREC34]

I brought this up in another thread but I think if you take away their ability to have money by tying the ability to have money into showing proof of legal status then you’re going to stop almost all of it. How to go about doing that is up for debate. 

Thing of it is I’m not sure the people that could make it happen actually want it to happen. I believe they like cheap labor and giving lower or no benefits. It puts more money in their pocket. Look at Trump himself...

 

[Stealthycat]

the grass is greener for 2/3 of the planets population as they look to the USA

we cannot absorb 3 billion immigrants - fact

right now we are a very generous country with 1 million legal immigrants every year. Our Govt pours taxpayer money into other countries. US citizens are exceptionally giving with donations and outreach programs and ministries to poor countries

the United States gives a great deal

nothing matters until the borders are secure and illegally here people stops happening .......... once that security exists, conditional citizenship and amnesty could work for the 15 million or more here illegally and protected by Democrats and sanctuary cities. The costs of all the transition should be on the cities and states that allow that too. Their choices, they can pay for it.

we could triple the legal immigration to 3 million a year, we could have a better system of vetting. Ports of entry need to check every car - if it takes 12 hours to get through, that's the price of having secure borders. Much harsher penalties for being in the US illegally. Companies hiring illegals lost 1 year net income - make it hurt when they do labor force wrong.

 

[The Commish]

For my Pro Trump friends, and I have quite a few, this is the thing they most commonly want to bring up when we talk about immigration. They ask "sounds a lot like Trump there and Dems gave him a standing ovation. What's up?"

It's weird because, to me, it doesn't sound anything like Trump.  Sure, the conclusion of increased border security is the same, but that's it.  But let's move past that for a second and assume that they sound exactly the same.  Hell, let's say that Trump read Clinton's speech word for word.  What's changed?  Time and accumulated data have both changed.  We've learned that what was believed then was incomplete based on information we now have.  We have the benefit of hindsight to see what was said then wasn't 100% true.  That's a significant difference.

A second difference is Clinton is giving his speech in the context of budget negotiations.  He's not threatening to circumvent Congress if he doesn't get his way.  He's actually provided detail on where the monies would be used and what they'd be used for in that budget. A third difference is, Clinton is attempting to follow the will of the people.  He's addressing this because a majority of Americans thought it needed to be addressed.  A fourth difference (kind of ties into difference #3) is Clinton isn't doing this after over a decade long decline in illegal immigration, much less fear mongering to a point of "national crisis".

Those are a few differences.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's weird because, to me, it doesn't sound anything like Trump. 





 

I think we'll just have to disagree.

All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.





 

sounds like something Trump would say. 

Deporting more illegal aliens and cracking down on hiring and barring benefits from the last sentence brought the democrats to their feet applauding. That's what my friends think is weird. I admit, I do too. 

 

[The Commish]

I'm kind of sad you just ignored the rest of the post where I gave reasons for why the words might be the same but the message be vastly different.  Maybe I should have said it that way to be clearer.   

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm kind of sad you just ignored the rest of the post where I gave reasons for why the words might be the same but the message be vastly different.  Maybe I should have said it that way to be clearer.   

Didn't ignore at all. And was totally clear. It just doesn't resonate. Sorry.

I do think though maybe going into that more is the answer.

Because I think the "this is exactly what your hero Clinton said" when people talk to me about it is a much bigger thing than people think it is. 

 

[The Commish]

Didn't ignore at all. And was totally clear. It just doesn't resonate. Sorry.

I do think though maybe going into that more is the answer.

Because I think the "this is exactly what your hero Clinton said" when people talk to me about it is a much bigger thing than people think it is. 

Context always matters to anyone wanting to have genuine discussion.  If people aren't interested in understanding the variables of the time when evaluating what people were saying at that time, they are missing, at best 60% of the picture, most likely more.  I don't see a point in engaging those sorts of people.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

Context always matters to anyone wanting to have genuine discussion.  If people aren't interested in understanding the variables of the time when evaluating what people were saying at that time, they are missing, at best 60% of the picture, most likely more.  I don't see a point in engaging those sorts of people.  

I'd agree with you that's how most people will likely see it. And I think it'll likely have the result you say of not engaging with "those sorts of people". Which I'm pretty sure is how we got here. And maybe that's ok. I don't disagree at all engaging with people who don't see things our way is difficult. 

 

[timschochet]

@timschochet in your opinion, can you dive more into what drives these pro and anti phases?

Again in very general terms (it would take hundreds of pages to be specific): different races combined with economic anxiety.

Most immigrants before 1840 were white Protestants. Then the Famine brings millions of Irish, coupled with an economic crash and suddenly there is anti-immigrant feeling. 

1880 or so Ellis Island opens up and Italians and Poles and Jews come to the east coast, Japanese and Chinese come to the west coast, huddle in the big cities, speak different languages and again there is backlash. Strict laws are passed which stay in place until 1965. 

Present day we have economic anxiety due to trade and automation, jobs aren’t coming back. White people concerned about becoming a minority. So once again a scapegoat is needed. In the past, anti-immigration had an openly racist tone, but this is no longer acceptable in our politically correct 21st Century. So illegal immigrants are blamed , because it gives people the emotional satisfaction to blame “the other” without having to feel like they’re being racist- in this case the other broke the law so its ok to blame them.

Thats how I see our history in a nutshell- others may disagree with some or all of this analysis. 

 

[timschochet]

The scary thing about this is that, despite our evolution on racism and bigotry being no longer acceptable, as a society we may NEED to blame “the other” irrationally when things go wrong- this may be a human failing which can’t be fixed. Certainly there is no historical reason to think that this is not the case. 

 

[The Commish]

I'd agree with you that's how most people will likely see it. And I think it'll likely have the result you say of not engaging with "those sorts of people". Which I'm pretty sure is how we got here. And maybe that's ok. I don't disagree at all engaging with people who don't see things our way is difficult. 

IMO, we got "here" by the electorate settling for soundbytes as their "news".  To me, it all gets traced back to that point.  As soon as we stopped seeking the whole picture to make informed decisions, we were doomed.  I prefer not to perpetuate that behavior by engaging people who won't go beyond that.  It's one thing to be seeking information and learning by starting off with the sound byte understanding of the problem/issue/concern.  It's another not to go beyond that and using that sound byte understanding as the foundation of your position.

ETA:  This wall discussion is pretty much the perfect example of what I am talking about.

 

[Da Guru]

I have to admit I have never been to the border areas in Texas and Arizona.  I have crossed from San Diego before for the day.

The only thing I draw from is all the interviews from border Patrol Agents.  Those are the people on the front line who deal with this everyday. I don`t care what Trump, Obama, Pelsoi  and other politicians say one way or the other.   I tend to listen more the them.  They think something more is necessary.  What?  I don`t have that answer.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think I agree with all of this but just to play the other side - what do you say to people who feel like their job has been taken?

The same thing we say to Blockbuster Video employees who lost their jobs. The results from technological advancement are more good than bad on the whole, but they also require adjustments to the economy that will cause hardships for certain people.

We can and should propose ways to make those hardships less painful. But reducing technological advancement is pretty clearly not the ideal answer.

International trade and immigration are identical to technological advancement in this way (and in pretty much every other way as well).

 

[AAABatteries]

Reasonable reply and you can get most/many/some to agree, but most people aren’t as reasonable when it happens to them.  I think it’s a good start at addressing the concern and it definitely is enough of an answer for me.  

 

[Joe Bryant]

The same thing we say to Blockbuster Video employees who lost their jobs. The results from technological advancement are more good than bad on the whole, but they also require adjustments to the economy that will cause hardships for certain people.

We can and should propose ways to make those hardships less painful. But reducing technological advancement is pretty clearly not the ideal answer.

International trade and immigration are identical to technological advancement in this way (and in pretty much every other way as well).

I think this is where I don't think that's a satisfying answer Maurile:

The blockbuster guy who lost his job, lost it because the industry changed. A Travel Agent could say the same. That was a shift in business and nothing illegal. I think most people understand those things are unfortunate, but nobody did anything illegal.

The landscape guy who lost his job because another company will hire undocumented workers for less money who are here illegally, that guy feels like the law didn't protect him. He is in an unfortunate spot because people broke the law.

 

[AAABatteries]

I think this is where I don't think that's a satisfying answer Maurile:

The blockbuster guy who lost his job, lost it because the industry changed. A Travel Agent could say the same. That was a shift in business and nothing illegal. I think most people understand those things are unfortunate, but nobody did anything illegal.

The landscape guy who lost his job because another company will hire undocumented workers for less money who are here illegally, that guy feels like the law didn't protect him. He is in an unfortunate spot because people broke the law.

I don’t want to speak for MT but I think his reply was more to do with my H1B example and not “illegal” immigrants.

 

[Henry Ford]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th/senate-bill/744

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think this is where I don't think that's a satisfying answer Maurile:

The blockbuster guy who lost his job, lost it because the industry changed. A Travel Agent could say the same. That was a shift in business and nothing illegal. I think most people understand those things are unfortunate, but nobody did anything illegal.

The landscape guy who lost his job because another company will hire undocumented workers for less money who are here illegally, that guy feels like the law didn't protect him. He is in an unfortunate spot because people broke the law.

For this purpose, I don’t think it matters whether the immigrant is documented or undocumented. We could legalize all immigration so that nobody is doing anything illegal, but the anti-immigration sentiment would be pretty much exactly the same, I imagine. The HB1 visa situation mentioned by AAABateries, for example, did not involve anything illegal.

 

[AAABatteries]

I will say Joe, that I agree with you and always found the answer that illegal immigrants frequently are doing jobs most Americans won’t do to be unsatisfying.  Just because most wouldn’t doesn’t mean all wouldn’t - yes, we need those positions filled to keep agriculture and other industries working but we can do better.  

 

[timschochet]

One reason we can’t have a rational nationwide discussion about this issue is that President Trump lies about it. Quite simply, he tells more falsehoods about this issue than any other. In his defense, he doesn’t make up most of the lies; they are fed to him by very disreputable sources. But they are lies nonetheless, and they are lies about every aspect of this issue: the cost of undocumented immigrants, the level of violence of undocumented immigrants, the cost and effect of non merit based legal immigration, the supposed threat to American labor, the cultural costs of assimilation or the lack of it- it’s all lies, it’s all wrong. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don’t want to speak for MT but I think his reply was more to do with my H1B example and not “illegal” immigrants.

Thanks. I'm sorry I missed that part. 

My example applies most to someone who feels like they lost a job to someone who is here illegally. I have a friend in the landscape business. This is a big factor for them. 

And the person who said the companies benefit from this - they're exactly right. The companies who look the other way and pay the undocumented people much less benefit greatly from the system.

 

[Joe Bryant]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th/senate-bill/744

Thanks Henry. Can you give us the cliff notes non lawyer version?

 

[timschochet]

And the person who said the companies benefit from this - they're exactly right. The companies who look the other way and pay the undocumented people much less benefit greatly from the system.

Which allows them to keep their prices low and competitive. So when companies benefit, we all benefit.