The Trump Years- Every day something more shocking than the last! (6 Viewers)

[timschochet]

So having a criteria for entry into the country is a dog whistle?  I don't know where the poorest immigrants come from.  Eastern India?  Syria?  Northern china?  South America?  lots of places?  

I think you’re being disingenuous here. The emphasis of all of Trump’s discussion on immigration, starting with the border wall, is focused on Latinos. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Whether it would make the immigration process "better" is subjective and debatable (I think the value of human beings has very little to do with their education level or athletic prowess, and I think allowing Americans to be with their families is pretty obviously beneficial to the country).  Whether it would severely limit the number of legal immigrants is not- it would.  Surely you see the difference.

Fair enough.  The point is that having a criteria for entry is not racist and in fact most first world countries have similar requirements.  This bill doesn't stop Americans from being with their families.  If the net result is fewer, but more beneficial to this country immigrants, why is that a bad thing?  

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I certainly don’t. 

Its a dog whistle for racism, since its designed to keep out poor, uneducated immigrants. Where do most of the poor, uneducated immigrants come from? I think you can figure that out. 

Also, Unckeyherb, being against undocumented immigrants (they are not “illegal” and that is a slanderous term IMO- people cannot be illegal) is not necessarily racist, though I am firmly on the opposite side. But Trump’s rhetoric on the matter, particularly his comments about Mexico, is racist and bigoted. 

People are here illegally, not undocumentedally, right?

 

[unckeyherb]

I think you’re being disingenuous here. The emphasis of all of Trump’s discussion on immigration, starting with the border wall, is focused on Latinos. 

no, you are being disingenuous.  YOU want this to be about Trump and Mexico.  Its about the betterment of the country.  You asked where the poorest immigrants come from.  My answer is, from a lot of places.  Plenty of  immigrants come from literally squalor and they all look different.  

 

[timschochet]

If the net result is fewer, but more beneficial to this country immigrants, why is that a bad thing?  

Yes. Because it’s impossible to define. 

If I wanted to start listing the accomplishments made to this country by poor, uneducated immigrants, and the children of poor, uneducated immigrants, it would be impossible to do so within 100,000 pages of posts. The list would be endless. 

 

[unckeyherb]

I certainly don’t. 

Its a dog whistle for racism, since its designed to keep out poor, uneducated immigrants. Where do most of the poor, uneducated immigrants come from? I think you can figure that out. 

Also, Unckeyherb, being against undocumented immigrants (they are not “illegal” and that is a slanderous term IMO- people cannot be illegal) is not necessarily racist, though I am firmly on the opposite side. But Trump’s rhetoric on the matter, particularly his comments about Mexico, is racist and bigoted. 

Its not a slanderous term.  It refers to their citizenship status.  Their status is literally illegal. 

 

[timschochet]

People are here illegally, not undocumentedally, right?

Neither word means anything in this context. 

There are people here without proper documents. The solution is to give them some. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Yes. Because it’s impossible to define. 

If I wanted to start listing the accomplishments made to this country by poor, uneducated immigrants, and the children of poor, uneducated immigrants, it would be impossible to do so within 100,000 pages of posts. The list would be endless. 

You are saying that bringing in more college graduates, computer programmers, doctors, textile engineers is not defineably different than bringing in unskilled workers with no means to support themselves from day one.  who's being disingenuous?

 

[Ignoramus]

Do you know what histrionics are?  

I do yet am unclear how it would relate to any of my posts.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Fair enough.  The point is that having a criteria for entry is not racist and in fact most first world countries have similar requirements.  This bill doesn't stop Americans from being with their families.  If the net result is fewer, but more beneficial to this country immigrants, why is that a bad thing?  

No, the point was that many Republicans are anti-immigration, even legal immigration. The bill- which would result in far fewer legal immigrants- and the support for it from the de facto leader of the party- shows that this is true.

If you want to debate the merits of the bill and its anti-immigration perspective, that's a different debate.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Neither word means anything in this context. 

There are people here without proper documents. The solution is to give them some. 

Give them some? Documents all around?

Not everyone thinks that is a very good solution

 

[unckeyherb]

No, the point was that many Republicans are anti-immigration, even legal immigration. The bill- which would result in far fewer legal immigrants- and the support for it from the de facto leader of the party- shows that this is true.

If you want to debate the merits of the bill and its anti-immigration perspective, that's a different debate.

Disagree with you.  The bill does not show that anyone is anti-immigration.  You want it to mean that, so it does.  Wanting to have better immigration does not mean you want to have no immigration.

 

[unckeyherb]

Give them some? Documents all around?

Not everyone thinks that is a very good solution

because it isn't.

 

[timschochet]

You are saying that bringing in more college graduates, computer programmers, doctors, textile engineers is not defineably different than bringing in unskilled workers with no means to support themselves from day one.  who's being disingenuous?

You mentioned benefit to the country. In terms of definable differences there is no distinction. 

Also you mention “no means to support themselves”. This is also largely untrue. Most unskilled labor comes here looking for work, which they get, mostly because Americans born here don’t want to perform that work. 

 

[unckeyherb]

I do yet am unclear how it would relate to any of my posts.

Histrionic:  exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention.

"Putting a sheet over your head doesn't necessarily mean that you're a racist, either. Talking about "running all them coloreds out of town" while doing it does."

 

[dutch]

Illegal, undocumented, unauthorized

 

[TobiasFunke]

Disagree with you.  The bill does not show that anyone is anti-immigration.  You want it to mean that, so it does.  Wanting to have better immigration does not mean you want to have no immigration.

There's no such thing as wanting zero immigration.  Such a thing would be impossible. So wanting less immigration means you are anti-immigration and vice versa.  Just like we'd describe someone who wants to cut the federal deficit in half as being anti-federal spending even though they don't want to get rid of the federal government entirely (which would be practically impossible).

 

[unckeyherb]

You mentioned benefit to the country. In terms of definable differences there is no distinction. 

Also you mention “no means to support themselves”. This is also largely untrue. Most unskilled labor comes here looking for work, which they get, mostly because Americans born here don’t want to perform that work. 

This is simply wrong.  How can you say that an engineer with job skills and a bank account is not distinguishable from a day laborer with $50 to his name?  Seriously.

 

[timschochet]

Give them some? Documents all around?

Not everyone thinks that is a very good solution

Unfortunately not. But I do. Hopefully you and others will eventually be persuaded. Just to be clear: I’m not proposing this for their benefit. I’m not an altruistic person. I’m in favor of amnesty and a path to citizenship because I believe it will strongly benefit US- you and me and everyone already here with proper papers 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

You mentioned benefit to the country. In terms of definable differences there is no distinction. 

Also you mention “no means to support themselves”. This is also largely untrue. Most unskilled labor comes here looking for work, which they get, mostly because Americans born here don’t want to perform that work. 

Do you have a link that isn't someone's  speculation that shows "most" of the people here illegally are working?

 

[unckeyherb]

There's no such thing as wanting zero immigration.  Such a thing would be impossible. So wanting less immigration means you are anti-immigration and vice versa.  Just like we'd describe someone who wants to cut the federal deficit in half as being anti-federal spending even though they don't want to get rid of the federal government entirely (which would be practically impossible).

You keep referring to the bolded as though it is fact.  They want better immigrants.  That is not the same thing as wanting less immigration, no matter how many times you say that it is.

We'd call the person who wants to cut the federal budget in half, fiscally responsible.  If he or she was a republican, many on this site would call them a bigot or a racist.

 

[timschochet]

This is simply wrong.  How can you say that an engineer with job skills and a bank account is not distinguishable from a day laborer with $50 to his name?  Seriously.

What I mean is this, using your example: 

Suppose on January 5th, 2018 we allow two immigrants to come to this country: the first an engineer with job skills and a bank account, the second a day laborer with $50. If we look back at this decision 20 years from now, which immigrant was of greater benefit? Who knows? Maybe the engineer builds a bridge that we can use. But maybe the unskilled laborer saves somebody’s life. Maybe the laborer’s kid goes to medical school and cures brain cancer. Who knows? My point is that it’s impossible to distinguish between them in terms of future benefit. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is simply wrong.  How can you say that an engineer with job skills and a bank account is not distinguishable from a day laborer with $50 to his name?  Seriously.

You're missing the "beneficial" part opf his post. I would argue, for example, that allowing American citizens to arrange for the immigration of loved ones is more beneficial to the country than bringing in some rich stranger who is doing just fine back home.

 

[The Indestructible]

This is simply wrong.  How can you say that an engineer with job skills and a bank account is not distinguishable from a day laborer with $50 to his name?  Seriously.

Grove arrived in the U.S. in 1957 with little money and even less in the way of English-language skills. He worked as a busboy while studying chemistry at the City College of New York. His English grades were average, but he excelled in all other subjects. 

Moving out to California, he co-founded Intel Corporation in 1968. He would become the company's chairman and CEO in 1997, along the way helping Intel become a billion-dollar company and one of the most important drivers of the information economy. Forbes estimates he's worth $400 million today.

The WhatsApp co-founder, 37, was born in Ukraine. He arrived in the U.S. when he was just 16 years old, and his family lived on food stamps.

On Feb. 19, Facebook announced it would buy WhatsApp for a stunning $19 billion in cash and stock. Forbes estimates that Koum holds about a 45% stake in the company, which would make him worth about $6.8 billion.

Coming to the U.S. in 1979 with just a dollar to his name, Ly settled in San Francisco. He lived for years with eight other family members in a two-bedroom apartment, learning to speak English as he attended classes. 

In 1984, Ly and his four brothers pooled their savings to open the Sugar Bowl Bakery. The bakery saw great success and has expanded to a $400 million dollar business, and in 1993 the Ly Brothers Corporation was born. Ly has been recognized as the Bay Area's "Most Admired CEO" and earned the "Immigrant Heritage Award."

Despite financial aid from Yale, Nooyi worked nights as a receptionist. She went in for interviews wearing a sari because she "had no money to buy clothes."

But she persevered and finished her degree, moving on to the Boston Consulting Group before joining PepsiCo in 1994. Since then, she has been a major part of reshaping the Pepsi brand, overseeing major acquisitions like Quaker Oats and Tropicana, and becoming CEO in 2001. Her salary is now in the tens of millions, dropping from nearly $20 million in 2011 to $12.6 million in 2012, after the company tied compensation to performance.

Yang was born in Taipei, Taiwan, in 1968, and his father died two years later. He moved with the rest of his family to San Jose, Calif., when he was 8 years old. Upon arriving in America, Yang knew just one word of English: "shoe."

But in spite of the language barrier, Yang excelled in school and attended Stanford, graduating in 1990. Five years later, he started Yahoo, which became an Internet powerhouse and helped him accumulate an estimated net worth of $1.15 billion. He stepped down from the company in 2012.

Often described as the quintessential “rags to riches” tale, the story of steel magnate Andrew Carnegie’s rise begins in 1835 in a small one-room home in Dunfermline, Scotland. Born into a family of destitute laborers, Carnegie received little schooling before his family emigrated to America in 1848. Arriving in Pennsylvania, the 13-year-old soon got a job in a textile mill, where he earned only $1.20 per week.

Carnegie went on to labor as a messenger boy and factory worker before eventually winning a job as a secretary and telegraph operator at the Pennsylvania Railroad. By 1859, the enterprising young worker had become superintendent of the railroad’s western division. Carnegie invested his newfound wealth in a variety of businesses including a bridgework company, a telegraph operation and—most famously—a steel mill. By the turn of the century, his Carnegie Steel Company had blossomed into an industrial empire, and Carnegie became the richest man in the world after he sold out to J.P. Morgan for $480 million. Proclaiming that, “the main who dies rich dies disgraced,” Carnegie spent his later years donating his fortune to charitable causes, eventually giving away some $350 million.

 

[msommer]

Fair enough.  The point is that having a criteria for entry is not racist and in fact most first world countries have similar requirements.  This bill doesn't stop Americans from being with their families.  If the net result is fewer, but more beneficial to this country immigrants, why is that a bad thing?  

Well, you can have criteria for entry that are racist, you know

 

[mrip541]

Having some kind of immigrant valuation system is wildly unamerican.

 

[timschochet]

Do you have a link that isn't someone's  speculation that shows "most" of the people here illegally are working?

Sure. Pew research center: 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-72-of-illegals-have-jobs-biggest-in-construction/article/2617560

BTW, I object to the Washington Examiner calling them illegals. But the facts are there. 

 

[msommer]

Pfft. Anecdote. 

/Gopper

PS now tell the one about Frederick Drumpf

 

[unckeyherb]

What I mean is this, using your example: 

Suppose on January 5th, 2018 we allow two immigrants to come to this country: the first an engineer with job skills and a bank account, the second a day laborer with $50. If we look back at this decision 20 years from now, which immigrant was of greater benefit? Who knows? Maybe the engineer builds a bridge that we can use. But maybe the unskilled laborer saves somebody’s life. Maybe the laborer’s kid goes to medical school and cures brain cancer. Who knows? My point is that it’s impossible to distinguish between them in terms of future benefit. 

We know a little right?  I mean if you are hiring someone, you look at their education at a minimum I assume.  You'd probably hire the person who went to Harvard over the local JC.  Maybe that person would turn out to be an idiot, but you'd be right in your decision at the time.  We analyze and vet people in our lives all the time.  Why is immigration different?

 

[timschochet]

Thanks. I didn’t think it was necessary to give hi examples. The answer should be obvious. 

 

[Dickies]

No, I'm asking how making the immigration process better is anti immigration.  Really.  If they were simply putting a cap on the amount of people allowed to enter, I would agree with you.  Requiring that each person coming here brings some requisite skills with them, that will benefit the country is not that.  Surely you see the difference.

ETA: if a Charter School bumped up their GPA requirements from 2.5 to 3.5 and added that bi-lingual students will get pushed to the front of the line come acceptance time and as such, their enrollment dropped, would you say that the school is anti-education?  Anti-Student?  

How many times have we heard "My parents/grandparents came here with nothing but the clothes on their backs and through hard work have built their own business." 

I don't think coming to this country without skills is necessarily a bad thing.  We are the land of opportunity after all, right?

 

[timschochet]

We know a little right?  I mean if you are hiring someone, you look at their education at a minimum I assume.  You'd probably hire the person who went to Harvard over the local JC.  Maybe that person would turn out to be an idiot, but you'd be right in your decision at the time.  We analyze and vet people in our lives all the time.  Why is immigration different?

Because we’re not hiring them. If we were, I’d argue that we need more unskilled labor anyhow. But I’m not arguing in favor of unskilled labor over engineers; I’m arguing for equal, open immigration for everyone. 

 

[unckeyherb]

The fact that there are articles on these rags to riches stories does harm to what I assume is argument.  The success stories are so few that they are actually worth writing an article about when they do happen.  Without looking I'd wager there aren't many articles about the college educated guy from India that came here and was a productive citizen, paid his taxes and contributed to the betterment of this community.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

You keep referring to the bolded as though it is fact.  They want better immigrants.  That is not the same thing as wanting less immigration, no matter how many times you say that it is.

We'd call the person who wants to cut the federal budget in half, fiscally responsible.  If he or she was a republican, many on this site would call them a bigot or a racist.

Correct, wanting better immigrants would be different from wanting less immigration. But the people who introduced the bill want less immigration.  If they didn't, they'd have proposed a bill that would have kept or increased to total number of admissions even if they also felt it was important to change the criteria for evaluation to screw over the families of Americans in favor of rich people or whatever. It would be incredibly easy to do that. But that's not what they proposed. They proposed a system that would halve the number of illegal immigrants. They wanted to severely restrict legal immigration.  Therefore they are anti-immigration IMO.

Ultimately this is just semantics and not really important. If you want to pretend anti-immigration means something other than what I think it obviously means, fine.  It really doesn't matter what you call it. Many Republicans, including the de facto leader of the party want fewer legal immigrants. That's not debatable. If you approve of that position but don't want to own what it is, so be it. It's a cruel, terrible, un-American position anyway.

 

[timschochet]

The fact that there are articles on these rags to riches stories does harm to what I assume is argument.  The success stories are so few that they are actually worth writing an article about when they do happen.  Without looking I'd wager there aren't many articles about the college educated guy from India that came here and was a productive citizen, paid his taxes and contributed to the betterment of this community.  

Even if your argument here is correct (and I dispute it anyhow) do you understand that it only takes one guy to create an Intel, with benefits for untold millions? 

 

[The Indestructible]

The fact that there are articles on these rags to riches stories does harm to what I assume is argument.  The success stories are so few that they are actually worth writing an article about when they do happen.  Without looking I'd wager there aren't many articles about the college educated guy from India that came here and was a productive citizen, paid his taxes and contributed to the betterment of this community.  

How can you say that Andrew Carnegie is not distinguishable from a college educated guy from India that came here and was a productive citizen, paid his taxes and contributed to the betterment of this community?  Seriously.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dhs-23-of-all-federal-prisoners-are-illegals-just-7-of-42034-saved-from-deportation/article/2630999

 

[Banger]

The fact that there are articles on these rags to riches stories does harm to what I assume is argument.  The success stories are so few that they are actually worth writing an article about when they do happen.  Without looking I'd wager there aren't many articles about the college educated guy from India that came here and was a productive citizen, paid his taxes and contributed to the betterment of this community.  

there was this one guy named Elon Musk from South Africa who's done fairly well...Satya Nadella (CEO of Microsoft) came over for grad school and has done ok.

 

[packersfan]

there was this one guy named Elon Musk from South Africa who's done fairly well...Satya Nadella (CEO of Microsoft) came over for grad school and has done ok.

The last President is from Kenya.

 

[GoBirds]

The problem is that economic inequality can't simply be reversed by repealing the laws that created it.  Inequality breeds inequality.  Access to investment opportunities, real estate, higher education, the internet, easy and convenient transportation ... all of that and many more things make rich people richer and leave others behind. Repealing the laws that widened the gap won't close the gap.  All it would do is slow down the rate at which it continues to widen.

This law isn’t the sole cause of this, the gap expanded under Obama’s reign and didn’t shrink despite the change we were all promised. Meanwhile Obama’s net worth went from $800k to $12,000,000. Maybe that was the “change”?  Unfortunately it will probably be more of the same just packaged differently , not sure what you do. 

 

[Banger]

https://twitter.com/AlanGrayson/status/949007792630792193

 

[unckeyherb]

Even if your argument here is correct (and I dispute it anyhow) do you understand that it only takes one guy to create an Intel, with benefits for untold millions? 

Look, we're getting into the weeds here.  You believe that an unskilled laborer coming to the country with no skills, no education and no money is completely not discernible from a college educated, bi-lingual woman with 5 digits in her bank account.  okay.  We'll agree to disagree.

And yeah, I know there are plenty of people who made it in this country from nothing.  That has nothing to do with this discussion.  That is an example of what makes this country great.  

 

[James Daulton]

Even if your argument here is correct (and I dispute it anyhow) do you understand that it only takes one guy to create an Intel, with benefits for untold millions? 

So just let in the future creator of Intel.

Duh

 

[unckeyherb]

wat?

what don't you understand?

 

[TobiasFunke]

We shouldn't even have to give these examples.  It's dumb. Human beings have value to this country beyond their economic contributions; reuniting with family being only the most obvious of the countless ways people can enhance American lives without college degrees or high income levels back home.  And letting people from all walks of life participate in the American experiment is pretty much what this country has always been all about. I'd bet it's how most of our families got here.

I know that's true for me- nobody in my family went to college until they got to America, and nobody was well-compensated until the second generation. Granted I'm an #######, but the other people in my family who are here because of our historical immigration practices are good people.

 

[The Indestructible]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dhs-23-of-all-federal-prisoners-are-illegals-just-7-of-42034-saved-from-deportation/article/2630999

link

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

Trump headed to Camp David. lol

 

[roadkill1292]

We've talked before about discussions here changing minds and I have to admit that Tim and many others here changed my mind on immigration from where I was 10-12 years ago.

People who want to be here and better their lives are about the best people you can get, regardless of their education or skill level.

 

[Ignoramus]

How many times have we heard "My parents/grandparents came here with nothing but the clothes on their backs and through hard work have built their own business." 

I don't think coming to this country without skills is necessarily a bad thing.  We are the land of opportunity after all, right?

My FIL came from Italy and knew how to fish. He started a business that now employs about 100 people.

 

[Atomic Punk]

The discussion today has been fantastic with very little sniping. Great job gentlemen!