Does DACA and open immigration = leaders giving up on urban & flyover USA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

+1 and the lower class too has been growing. From the 70's, the biggest jump has been the middle upper/upper class. I know for my family this has been the case. We were lower class in the 70's. Now, most of my siblings and I are upper middle.

Upper middle/upper has grown by 7 points.
Lower/lower midde has grown by 4 points
Middle class has shrunk by 11 points

The largest growth is the "Highest" bracket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

The upper class is larger than it was in past generations, but it's the lower class that's absorbing more of the middle. And the move from middle class to lower class is more of a one-way street than it's been in decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

The upper class is larger than it was in past generations, but it's the lower class that's absorbing more of the middle. And the move from middle class to lower class is more of a one-way street than it's been in decades.

No, some of the middle class are moving to the lower class but more are moving to the upper class.

[Anonymous]

No, some of the middle class are moving to the lower class but more are moving to the upper class.

If that's what you want to believe, I don't really care, but people who are at the low end of the middle in that chart someone posted don't have much space in their lives to think about or do what it takes to get to the high end of the middle. What they can picture of the upper class is whatever they see on magazine covers in the checkout line.

The OP asked if DACA and open immigration is diverting public funds and efforts from Americans. My only point is that upward mobility has not been a priority for government at any level for three or four generations. If you want to make it, you have to get there on your own. You'll get extra praise, but no extra credit, if you managed to scrap your way out of poverty.

I think the problem Americans are having is evidence that immigrants have more resilience and grit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

The upper class is larger than it was in past generations, but it's the lower class that's absorbing more of the middle. And the move from middle class to lower class is more of a one-way street than it's been in decades.

But the lifestyles of the lower class are aimilar to that of the middle class 50 years ago. The middle, at that time, had no air-conditioning, dryers (for the most part), or dishwashers; they shared a "party-line" phone, had one small black-and white TV in the living room, that type of thing. Today, with advancements, the majority of lower income people have dishwashers, multiple color TVs, A/C, cell phones, computers, that type of thing.

So when you say many in the middle moved down to the lower, it's really that the lower "lifestyle" moved up to the middle (if that makes sense).

[Anonymous]

Most news articles focus on high achieving beneficiaries of DACA. DACA was/is for a finite group of people:
brought to the USA before June 15, 2007, continuously here by June 15, 2012, born between June 16, 1981 and June 15, 2007.

Of course the June 15 , 2007 birth would have had to occur just across the border and then the crossing on the same date. So go with June 14, 2007. Otherwise they would be another anchor.

Perhaps the Mexican DACA argument is but they could have been anchors.

Through March 2017 there were:
initial Mexico 689,029
renewal Mexico 689,235 [repeat renewals]

About 887,000 total DACA initial requests. Should DACA apply to countries other than our neighbors Canada and Mexico? Poland? India? Pakistan? All sorts of people creeped in. Expired visas and they just never left?

What about people brought here in 2008? DACA has distinct lines so for those in favor of open immigration where would you draw a line?

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20and%20Studies/Immigration%20Forms%20Data/All%20Form%20Types/DACA/daca_performancedata_fy2017_qtr2.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

+1 and the lower class too has been growing. From the 70's, the biggest jump has been the middle upper/upper class. I know for my family this has been the case. We were lower class in the 70's. Now, most of my siblings and I are upper middle.

Upper middle/upper has grown by 7 points.
Lower/lower midde has grown by 4 points
Middle class has shrunk by 11 points

The largest growth is the "Highest" bracket.

Those brackets are a bit skewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

Do you mean "leaders don't believe urban and flyover masses have any potential"?

If I understand your premise correctly, you're about 60-75 years too late with your concern about investment in human capital. When women and minorities started into and up within the workforce, around WWII, the priority shifted from finding and training the best and brightest to maintaining middle and lower classes. The bottleneck on upward mobility has been squeezing shut for decades.

Schools, training, scholarships, etc. cost money and public funds have gone from a trickle to a dribble to a slow drip. But you should really be looking at leaders at state and local levels - especially in flyover states (koff koff - especially red states) where education hovers near the bottom of spending priorities. Look at how hostile our culture is to teachers. Any wonder the quality of teaching is so low?

The most recent statistics show that the middle class is shrinking because the upper class is expanding. Families are moving up.

+1 and the lower class too has been growing. From the 70's, the biggest jump has been the middle upper/upper class. I know for my family this has been the case. We were lower class in the 70's. Now, most of my siblings and I are upper middle.

Upper middle/upper has grown by 7 points.
Lower/lower midde has grown by 4 points
Middle class has shrunk by 11 points

The largest growth is the "Highest" bracket.

Those brackets are a bit skewed.

Well, I'm not quite sure what source that wiki graph came from, but it still shows that the upper/upper middle has shot up much more in the past few decades than any other class.

[Anonymous]

Reagan and Bush41 debating in 1980 about the issue of children of illegal immigrants.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w

Oh GOP, where has it fallen?

[Anonymous]

They are the hope of Latino America - but only if they return to their home country.

Enough with the Obama open-borders policy. Time to end it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Essentially our leaders, both political and multi-nationals, don't believe urban and flyover masses have no potential for upward mobility. Their theory is we have to bring in a new wave of immigrants who have more ambition and hunger to succeed?

Money and resources aren't infinite--any dollar we spend on immigrants is a dollar we're not spending on new schools, training, scholarships, etc. in/for urban & flyover Americans. There's a genuine media, political, and multi national obsession in this country with immigration, but zero obsession with urban or flyover America, outside of perhaps gun violence in inner-cities.

its the urban elite giving a giant middle finger to most of the US. and then calling them racist for wanting to keep their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your underlying premise is wrong.

the premise is right on target

here is the senator from india pushing for tripling H1Bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOW0cUaGWZU

[Anonymous]

The Republican leadership in Congress are gutless.

Apparently, Trump is going to extend DACA for 6 months to give time for Congress to pass legislation to protect these kids which is exactly how it should be done. It should not be for a president through EO - whether Obama or Trump or any future president - to take care of this issue. It is the responsibility of Congress to deal with it. The Republican congressional leadership does not want to be put on the spot on this because they know their base does not support it so they would rather punt it to Trump to just extend DACA through another EO.

I rarely support Trump but this is something that he is actually handling correctly: place the onus on the legislature to pass a law to protect them and make them vote either yea or nay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republican leadership in Congress are gutless.

Apparently, Trump is going to extend DACA for 6 months to give time for Congress to pass legislation to protect these kids which is exactly how it should be done. It should not be for a president through EO - whether Obama or Trump or any future president - to take care of this issue. It is the responsibility of Congress to deal with it. The Republican congressional leadership does not want to be put on the spot on this because they know their base does not support it so they would rather punt it to Trump to just extend DACA through another EO.

I rarely support Trump but this is something that he is actually handling correctly: place the onus on the legislature to pass a law to protect them and make them vote either yea or nay.

There are very loud people, groups, media in support of DACA. It's political and people thinking with their hearts NOT their heads. If 887,000 /31 is about 28,600 per birth year. Does DACA expand for people born after the period that qualified?

Does the USA open up to total benefits for any brought here? Given the DACA age group many are now parents of anchors. People can't express themselves against DACA or they are considered racist. The Dems are CASA and DACA and that Clinton HB1 video?