immmigrant haters: do you really want to be like Japan?

[Anonymous]

We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

controling borders does not give you license to abuse people. that's the ground TRUMP has shifted the debate to - equating controlling the border with demonizing & abusing immigrants. I guarantee you there will not be a single D candiate with a platform that is against "controlling the border." it's a straw man:

Trump: All immigrants are rapist and bad hombres, and we must lock them up an take away their babies

Democrats: Don't put babies in cages. Meanwhile, here is my 10-point plan to increase border security by means such as --

Republicans: YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

Absolutely agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Democrats further drive immigrants into the shadows and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation by continuing to roll out the red carpet and invite them in. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

FIFY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

Which consistently pay cash so no need for them to go through E-Verify. They know this. And this is why they come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

That's not really a problem at all. I mean, I'm an immigrant who would have certainly cleared whatever criteria merit-based immigration would have embraced. I have a job that pays in the six figures. I live in a 1M+ house in a nice school district. I shop and I save. You'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that a thousand people like me are worse for the country than a thousand illiterate, low-skilled, non-English-speaking migrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Republicans further drive immigrants into the shadow and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

This problem - and its solution - is not tied to any particular candidate. It will persist well past the time when both Trump and Sanders are pushing up daisies. Let go of personalities for a moment.

If your sole argument that low-skilled, low-literacy, poor immigrants are good for the US economy and should be regularized because we rely on them to do the things Americans won't do, do you realize that the whole reason they take jobs Americans won't take is that they have no access to any other jobs? Why would a person who is legally in the country work for less than a native-born American? Why would a person legally in the country take a job that pays crap wages with no benefits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

controling borders does not give you license to abuse people. that's the ground TRUMP has shifted the debate to - equating controlling the border with demonizing & abusing immigrants. I guarantee you there will not be a single D candiate with a platform that is against "controlling the border." it's a straw man:

Trump: All immigrants are rapist and bad hombres, and we must lock them up an take away their babies

Democrats: Don't put babies in cages. Meanwhile, here is my 10-point plan to increase border security by means such as --

Republicans: YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!

Prominent democrats have called, variously, to abolish ICE, de-criminalize illegal entry, refuse state and local cooperation with ICE, refused any additional walls or fencing, to provide free healthcare for illegals, and all kinds of other crap, including broad amnesty for illegals here.

So forgive me for doubting that Democrats want to close the border from illegal immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

controling borders does not give you license to abuse people. that's the ground TRUMP has shifted the debate to - equating controlling the border with demonizing & abusing immigrants. I guarantee you there will not be a single D candiate with a platform that is against "controlling the border." it's a straw man:

Trump: All immigrants are rapist and bad hombres, and we must lock them up an take away their babies

Democrats: Don't put babies in cages. Meanwhile, here is my 10-point plan to increase border security by means such as --

Republicans: YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!

Prominent democrats have called, variously, to abolish ICE, de-criminalize illegal entry, refuse state and local cooperation with ICE, refused any additional walls or fencing, to provide free healthcare for illegals, and all kinds of other crap, including broad amnesty for illegals here.

So forgive me for doubting that Democrats want to close the border from illegal immigration.

Literally none of what you listed is "open borders." That's absurd. Get back to me with evidentiary proof that democrats want to end all border controls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Republicans further drive immigrants into the shadow and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

This problem - and its solution - is not tied to any particular candidate. It will persist well past the time when both Trump and Sanders are pushing up daisies. Let go of personalities for a moment.

If your sole argument that low-skilled, low-literacy, poor immigrants are good for the US economy and should be regularized because we rely on them to do the things Americans won't do, do you realize that the whole reason they take jobs Americans won't take is that they have no access to any other jobs? Why would a person who is legally in the country work for less than a native-born American? Why would a person legally in the country take a job that pays crap wages with no benefits?

Yes, they take jobs here because it's a better opportunity - there's nothing unclear about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

controling borders does not give you license to abuse people. that's the ground TRUMP has shifted the debate to - equating controlling the border with demonizing & abusing immigrants. I guarantee you there will not be a single D candiate with a platform that is against "controlling the border." it's a straw man:

Trump: All immigrants are rapist and bad hombres, and we must lock them up an take away their babies

Democrats: Don't put babies in cages. Meanwhile, here is my 10-point plan to increase border security by means such as --

Republicans: YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!

Prominent democrats have called, variously, to abolish ICE, de-criminalize illegal entry, refuse state and local cooperation with ICE, refused any additional walls or fencing, to provide free healthcare for illegals, and all kinds of other crap, including broad amnesty for illegals here.

So forgive me for doubting that Democrats want to close the border from illegal immigration.

Literally none of what you listed is "open borders." That's absurd. Get back to me with evidentiary proof that democrats want to end all border controls.

You Twit- I never said Democrats want open borders. I do think they are comfortable with existing, and in some cases increased, border porosity.

To me, porosity is unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

The problem with Trump's plan is that he only wants skilled immigrants. That would lead to immigrants taking the higher paying jobs, leaving Americans with the low skilled jobs.

Also, in many urban areas, Americans really don't want the minimum wage jobs, even at $12 to $15/hr. And that is why many illegal immigrants go to urban areas because they know they can find low skilled jobs there.

That's not really a problem at all. I mean, I'm an immigrant who would have certainly cleared whatever criteria merit-based immigration would have embraced. I have a job that pays in the six figures. I live in a 1M+ house in a nice school district. I shop and I save. You'd be hard-pressed to make an argument that a thousand people like me are worse for the country than a thousand illiterate, low-skilled, non-English-speaking migrants.

PRECISELY. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well said. The US continues to accept about 1 million legal immigrants every year, and these numbers have continued under Trump. There is no such large scale legal immigration to Japan.

I do think we could increase legal immigration , say, to 1.5 million people a year, but no-one seems to want to discuss this.

OP here. The Democrats want to discuss this. Despite the libel that they want open borders, what their platform ACTUALLY calls for is regularlizing immigration in a way that serves the needs of the economy. Whether that is 500,000 a year or more or less, I don't know.

"What serves the needs of the economy" means different things to different people. There is no need to set up false dilemmas like "let in everyone who wants to" or "be cared for by robots in your old age."

Besides, when you argue for increased inflow of low-skilled migrants, you are basically institutionalizing a perpetual underclass. Businesses love hiring people who work cheaply, have no rights and receive no benefits. I don't know if this is the sort of dependency you want to encourage.

Hey, if you want to talk about the well-being of low-wage workers, I know of a couple of great candiates focusing on that (Warren and Sanders).

What creates a perpetual underclass is when the business establishment of a nation knowingly relies on illegal labor, while Republicans further drive immigrants into the shadow and make them even more vulnerable to exploitation. A cynical person could say that is by design ...

This problem - and its solution - is not tied to any particular candidate. It will persist well past the time when both Trump and Sanders are pushing up daisies. Let go of personalities for a moment.

If your sole argument that low-skilled, low-literacy, poor immigrants are good for the US economy and should be regularized because we rely on them to do the things Americans won't do, do you realize that the whole reason they take jobs Americans won't take is that they have no access to any other jobs? Why would a person who is legally in the country work for less than a native-born American? Why would a person legally in the country take a job that pays crap wages with no benefits?

Yes, they take jobs here because it's a better opportunity - there's nothing unclear about that.

Also - you're missing a key part of the situation. It's not only that immigrants are needed to work jobs, but also that native-born Americans' fertility rate is so low. We need immigration for a stable economy ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have the right to control our border.

We have a right to decide on how many legal immigrants are permitted.

We have a right to decide on the characteristics of said immigrants.

The idea that the best test for who should be here is a willingness to walk across the southern border, or overstay a visa, is absurd.

I do not wish to deport millions of people. However, I will not vote for any candidate who is wishy washy on our absolute right to control our borders.

controling borders does not give you license to abuse people. that's the ground TRUMP has shifted the debate to - equating controlling the border with demonizing & abusing immigrants. I guarantee you there will not be a single D candiate with a platform that is against "controlling the border." it's a straw man:

Trump: All immigrants are rapist and bad hombres, and we must lock them up an take away their babies

Democrats: Don't put babies in cages. Meanwhile, here is my 10-point plan to increase border security by means such as --

Republicans: YOU WANT OPEN BORDERS!!!

Prominent democrats have called, variously, to abolish ICE, de-criminalize illegal entry, refuse state and local cooperation with ICE, refused any additional walls or fencing, to provide free healthcare for illegals, and all kinds of other crap, including broad amnesty for illegals here.

So forgive me for doubting that Democrats want to close the border from illegal immigration.

+1
It's like doing everything imaginable sexually except for intercourse and calling yourself a "virgin."