timschochet
Footballguy
Joe, is it wrong for me to regard this as a racist comment? He’s basically saying that the more Latin Americans we take in, the more we will become a third world country. What inference should I take, if not a racist one?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The migrant caravan (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
You do realize that you way of thinking was extremely popular during large waves of immigration that occurred in the 1800s and early 1900s? Any of your ancestors come from Ireland? Eastern or Southern Europe?
https://reimaginingmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/nypl.digitalcollections.c146bf32-7fda-68d3-e040-e00a1806693f.001.w.jpg
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Let’s say we have a change of heart and decide to grant asylum to most of these 4,000 people. How long until the next caravan is organized and how much larger would it be? And if that one was successful, what about the next? And the one after that?
We add over a million immigrants a year so a few thousand extra is certainly something that can be handled but I believe the numbers would explode past what would be manageable within a few years if we were practically open.
We add over a million immigrants a year so a few thousand extra is certainly something that can be handled but I believe the numbers would explode past what would be manageable within a few years if we were practically open.
timschochet
Footballguy
There has never been a wave of refugees or immigrants that came to our country in which this exact same “slippery slope” argument wasn’t made.
My simple answer to you is- We’re not a lifeboat and we’re nowhere near full. If that ever happens, then we can talk about it.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Which waves are you referring to? The Vietnamese? European waves in the 19th century? This wave would be quite different in many ways. And our country is different.
If we allowed open immigration (although with vetting) for any citizen from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, how many would you guess would come within 5 years? I understand it would be a wild guess. I think it would be multiple millions.
Even if we take all these in, what about those that want to come here from Asia, and Africa, and the Middle East and elsewhere? Do we limit those numbers? Open up to them too?
The lifeboat analogy is overly simplistic. The larger the wave the more stresses we’d have on our social systems, at least in the short run.
We agree on the importance of immigration in our past and in our future. We just disagree at what pace might be sustainable. And perhaps about the numbers who want to come.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shula-holic
Footballguy
An economic one? Just because someone disagrees with you it doesn't automatically mean they are racist.
Dedfin
Footballguy
I know I've been having a different conversation than everyone else here, but I think the long road solution here is to invest into Central America, on their terms. Let's not tell them who to elect or what sort of government to have or say "hey we are gonna use you for our fake war on drugs". We'll just invest, give humanitarian aid, support local small businesses and with luck in a generation not a single Honduran or El Salvadorean will need to walk across Mexico to come to America because they have their own baller country to live in. We made this mess, let's clean it up.
KCitons
Footballguy
I'm all for setting up requirements for letting anyone that wants to come to this country to do so. But, do we do so for the sake of the immigrants or refugees, or for the good of the country? I also see this as the "Little Red Hen". Now that we have something that everyone else wants, should we just allow anyone and everyone the ability to have it? The tired, poor and huddled masses was what built this country. But, does that mean that's what's best for our country to continue being the best?
I would argue whether or not we are the greatest country ever, or even at the present time. Our successes have not come without a price. In my opinion, the arrow hasn't been pointing up for quite some time.
I would also ask if there is ever a point where we would draw the line on how many people we would allow into the country? Is there ever a point where it becomes an unmanageable population to feed and cloth. Not to mention the carbon footprint that each brings to an already stressed ecosystem. If you agree that we could reach a point where we have to say no, what are the parameters that would make you say no more?
I agree with others that we don't take care of our own. We have to many people in this country that go hungry or homeless. I fully understand that they are suffering these same things in other countries in addition to civil wars. Some may see us as the greatest country, but prosperity still eludes many. I wouldn't want to invite more people into this country only to see them go hungry and living in the streets.
Finally, I respect the history or your family tree. Everyone has a story that brought their families to America. In the cases of Germany and Japan, it was only after we destroyed much of those countries that we were finally able to rebuild them. The circumstances were much different at that time. We had an obligation to protect the world from tyranny. It was obvious and military action was accepted by the world. We can't do that in most cases these days. I'm not sure what the answer is. But, I would much rather see other countries overcome their issues and build a better place so people don't have to walk thousands of miles just to survive.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
These governments are corrupt. There’s really no way to invest in these countries until they fix that.
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Says the guy supporting a President that is willing to sell the country’s values for some Saudi petrol dollars...nothing corrupt there
-fish-
Footballguy
In many cases, we are responsible for putting these governments into power. Do we have responsibility for that?
jonessed
Footballguy
boots11234
Footballguy
How about they stay in their country and fix it?
-fish-
Footballguy
How would you suggest that they do that? The people fleeing the country don't have food or money, let alone the means to fight gang violence or overthrow their governments. That's sort of exactly why they're leaving.
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s the way he disagreed. If you think that allowing more Latin Americans in will turn us into a 3rd world country, I’m going to make certain assumptions. And they’re not economic.
-fish-
Footballguy
Over 400,000 people have immigrated from the UK over the last 20 years. I'm sure they're equally outraged about that.
Shula-holic
Footballguy
Did I miss in his quote where he referred to their race? When I hear someone use the phrase "third world country", I think of economics. I don't think it's specific to a race. I think of it more along the lines as we need immigration, yes. But there isn't an unlimited amount of people we can take and not turn into, or become closer to, the situation they are trying to flee. Which in my view is largely economic despair.
boots11234
Footballguy
there goes tim again. Sees a racist wherever he looks. I hope Trump puts troops at the border. Oh have you noticed how the governments down there are doing whatever they can to stop it after trumps tweet? They, and the rest of the world know that he means what he says. Refreshing.
-fish-
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
France called. If we’re done with the statue, they want it back.
jonessed
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
seeking asylum isn't entering the country illegally. it's legal. under our laws. you know, rule of law and all.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Insomniac
Footballguy
The author of that article is Steven Camarota, the Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies. The CIS is listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the SPLC. Far right wingers hate the SPLC because they claim bias but they love libertarian far-right CATO institute so I'll use a quote from them.
CIS Critique
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Our history of treating immigrants has actually been quite terrible.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Insomniac
Footballguy
I know what you mean but the reality is the people who hated immigrants 150+ years ago didn't consider the Irish, Italian, Jewish and Eastern European immigrants as "white". Someday maybe everyone in this country will truly believe in "liberty and justice for all" but we're not there yet and probably not very close to it. These days it's just different ethnic/racial groups. To me the saddest part of that is people with my ethnic heritage, whose ancestors were discriminated against, make up a good portion of the people who are bigoted against the new immigrants.
rustycolts
Footballguy
This is an article I posted once before. I think it is an excellent idea and I wish there was a way to implement it. It would be expensive but the immigration problem at some point will get really expensive for our government. I think when I posted before Tim said that it was a good idea but no way it could actually get done for numerous reasons . It is shame because it could probably work if we could overcome the obstacles.
Both The Left And Right Are Wrong On Immigration
by JSB Morse
June 21, 2018
Featured Articles, Politics
Immigration has been a hot button issue since the inception of the United States, but it seems to have hit a particularly partisan critical mass since President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policyhas been implemented. Suddenly, the mainstream media has picked up on the illegal immigrant detention centers and, most notably, the separation of immigrant children from their parents once apprehended.
Never mind the fact that this has been going on at the border for decades under several presidents, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)-celebrant Barack Obama. And never mind that the outrage ignores (perhaps intentionally) the legality of the immigrants in question. Whether or not you think it should be illegal to cross a national border, it is in fact illegal and people who do illegal things typically have their children “taken away”, yet there’s no uproar about those anti-family policies.
The Trumpeters seem to be content with imprisoning hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to protect our economy, even if it means breaking up families while the offenders are in detention. After all, illegal immigration weighs us down and makes us poorer, they argue. If we had no social welfare programs that immigrants could take advantage of, open immigration could be an option, but until then, open borders means economic suicide.
On the other side, the left is outraged by the feds’ treatment of people who aren’t harming anyone. They demand that we loosen our immigration policy and at the very least figure out a way to keep families together. Migrants are a boon to our economy and even if they aren’t, we are wealthy enough to support their quest for a better life, they argue.
All of this partisan uproar has missed the point. Both sides are focusing on the symptom of illegal immigration and ignore the disease of horrifying economic conditions in the source of emigration.
Opening borders and bringing countless immigrants into the United States would wreck our economy and not do anything to fix the problem. Of course this is akin to the ‘eating the rich mentality’ that pervades socialists. It’s a self-destructive policy at best.
Similarly, building the biggest, most “hugely” wall on the planet and perpetuating the deportation cycle will put us further in debt and still not solve the problem.
The solution isn’t to keep them out of our economic promised land or to let them in; the solution is to give them their own economic promised land.
Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are areas in which business and trade laws are different from the rest of the country for the express purpose of improving the economy. Hong Kong is the quintessential example. The minimally-regulated British outpost off the coast of mainland China turned a resource-poor rock with a few thousand people to one of the world’s largest economies within a couple generations. It was so successful that China imitated the model several times throughout their country to varying degrees of success.
Several other jurisdictions have tried the idea, most notably Ireland, several African countries, and pertinent to the topic of American immigration: Honduras.
Some obstacles to these SEZs include initial capital and the willingness of the presiding jurisdiction to relinquish some authority. The idea to turn a relatively inhospitable part of a woefully impoverished country into a leading economic superpower within 50 years has to hold sway with even the most despotic government administrators. Of course, the problem is that once bureaucrats have power, it’s nearly impossible to get them to relinquish it.
The US could offer both seed money and political pressure to encourage the development of these zones. With the illegal immigration fight costing over $100 billion in the United States, it would behoove us to invest some of that in a real solution. President Trump, who recently tossed up the idea of a space military force, could take the lead in the only win-win policy. Instead of launching storm troopers, Trump should be launching economic missionaries.
America isn’t some magical place where money grows on trees. True, the country is resource-rich, but so is Venezuela and it’s rapidly becoming the financial toilet of the hemisphere due to its socialist economic policies. The United States is a destination for economic refugees mainly because of its free market system. We need to stop being reactive regarding immigration, and instead start promoting the system which is bringing people here, elsewhere.
It’s heartbreaking to see families broken up over a particularly arbitrary ruling. The children, especially, are victims of circumstance, not hardened criminals. Separating them from their families and putting them in cages is not going to fix the problem. But neither is opening our borders. Only when we improve the economic situation of the source countries can we hope to stem the flow of economic refugees and illegal immigrants into the United States. When that happens, perhaps we can have the conversation about turning one of our cities — say Detroit? — into a Special Economic Zone of our own.
Underachievers
Footballguy
Insomniac
Footballguy
I don't feel like I'm in a position to evaluate either the study which I haven't seen or the criticism of it by Camarota. CIS has earned a bad reputation and unless I see something from a reputable source supporting their research I feel free to believe anything from that organization is equal to something by David Duke. Even the right wing (Koch Brothers) Cato Institute trashes the CIS.
timschochet
Footballguy
I really appreciate the posts by Juxtatarot and Kcitons. There are legitimate disagreements on this issue by people of good will. I get that, I respect it. But there is also a lot of ugliness out there as well and I don’t mind calling it out when I see it.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Da Guru
Fair & Balanced
Please take this sincerely and not as a jab.
I have to ask this because this is in your backyard. I just watched the Dateline on Skid Row in LA. Why are you not as passionate and emotional about that? My wife and I were crying.
There are 55 thousand homeless in LA, another 15-20 thousand in surrounding areas like Venice. These people are destitute. That is 75-80 thousand people in just that area. I understand your were emotional about 4K migrants but they are 1200 miles away in another country and you have 75-80K of basically the same type living around you and nobody cares. Start a topic on that and you will get no response because it is not a political hot button and skid row has been there forever. These are real people suffering.
I have said before I volunteer once a month in Detroit at a church that helps the homeless and needy and over the years I have turned on many people to do the same.
Detroit is bad but nowhere near the issues that LA has...but nobody cares. If a POTUS bashed skid row then maybe people would care...very sad.
Please watch this. https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/city-of-angels/3779455
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
Maybe the answer is to sponsor a refugee or their family.
I don't remember the specifics as I was too young. My Aunt and Uncle sponsored a family in the 70's from Vietnam. My Aunt and Uncle were a very giving couple (took in dozens of foster children and adopted 2 of them). I just remember the family living with them for a short time while they became acclimated. We visited them a couple of times once they finally got settled. My Mom still makes a Vietnamese egg roll that they taught our family to make.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I know they have a bad reputation, but the article has very fair criticisms. Even if you dismiss exactly what it says but just use it as a guide to look at those sections, some things really stand out.
For example they picked certain date ranges. Lets ignore motive and look at the raw data. Do you think it is fair to compare two population sets that are so different in age? If 81% of one population is between the ages of 18-64 and the other is 63%, does that sound like good comparison groups? That has a major impact on 32% of the total expenditures. Refugees were represented at much lower %'s for these two expenses, but were represented at higher %'s for almost all others. More housing assistance, more snap, more medicare, more SSI, etc.
In other words they cost more than the US population per capita with the exception of these two major areas which are 2nd and 3rd for overall expense and are enough to swing the pendulum.
Insomniac
Footballguy
Why should I accept the analysis of someone that is one of the most important people in an organiation credibly accused of bigotry by both left and right wing organizations? There's also opinions from both left and right wing organizations that show immigration is an economic positive. Historically for the US, immigration has been a huge positive. (except for Native Americans) To a great extent our economic model requires a growing population that will not be supported by domestic birth rates. We need immigrants and the vast majority of them are going to have to be people of color.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
So ignore the data that I just gave you which that guy doesnt even mention in his article and is directly from the report itself?
Typical.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Insomniac
Footballguy
Yeah I'll ignore any "evidence" from a source that's a white supremist group. (CIS)
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Unreal. That data isnt from them. It is from the report from the dept of health and human services. The article in national review mentions none of it. The article mentioned they cherry picked data. That made me look at the data. I now presented you the data and told you it was from the report itself. You can verify here. Even though we both know you won't.
So typical of you guys these days. I am sure the group will be along to high five your use of the talking points though.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Hi Para, personally I don’t believe in ignoring facts. It’s tough for me because I don’t believe the source, but I will read it again nonetheless. I doubt it will change my overall position, but perhaps it will help me understand yours better.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks Da Guru. I am concerned about Skid Row and I try to help when I’m able. I care very much about it. But I don’t think things have to be either-or. I have never accepted the argument “let’s help our own first.” I say let’s help our own, and help others, and help others still.
timschochet
Footballguy
I meant I didn’t believe the CiS. I suspect they fashion the statistics they report in such a way as to misrepresent them. And/or they fail to report additional facts that give the information greater context.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
When I posted this
I didnt take any of that from the CIS or the article written for the national review. The national review article made different points about how they cherry picked the year range. It did seem odd the range they chose so that made me actually go look at the report in the new york times article. I found those %'s and that info. I did the math.
ETA: Now in like 5 subsequent posts between you, insomniac, and officer tanner you all are just criticizing the CIS. Its super annoying.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
