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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

I don't know what your point is. Do you think we should have a permanent underclass of low-skill workers who should never be able to move up?

I think that every society will naturally have an underclass, and there are enough people domestically to fill that need. Some people will move up, some won't. There is no shame in that.

Yes, there are industries that are heavily reliant on illegal migrant labor. That's not the thing you want to encourage - both for the sake of businesses, and for the sake of migrants they exploit. This problem won't be solved by legalizing migrants because legalized migrants won't find these jobs attractive anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

You're failing to see the point. The point is: the research shows NOT that we have an emergency with illegal entry; but rather a mismatch with our legalization of immigration and our current and future labor needs (especially low-skill) in light of our demographics. The rational policy response to to focus on creating legal immigration routes. Yet, your side focuses on demonizing illegal immigrants rhetorically, and treating them brutally. It is not a rational policy response ... unless you're more interested in stirring up animus towards illegal immigrants.

The BEST policy platform for immigration is: reform to provide us with the legal migrants we need, and treat everyone humanely.

"Legal migrants we need" is something that rational people can disagree about. Policies respond to societal needs but policies also shape societies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So then who fills the unskilled jobs? Do employers just start paying more to attract workers, or will they start looking for a new source of illegal labor?

The same people who always fill them. Young people, people without education, people who just want side jobs, new entries, basically people without better options. Who do you think works at McDee these days? That's your demographic.

And yes, employers may need to start paying more.

Parents need to push their kids to work "menial" jobs. My daughter is working at a local ice cream shop - getting paid minimum wage. Her boss is tough. He has an image he wants to maintain. Lots of kids don't want to follow his rules.

but guess what? He gave my daughter a chance - her first job. While some of his rules are picky, she's learning some soft skills which are often overlooked.

But so many parents (American-born) have little respect for "menial" jobs and that distaste is passed down to their children.

I am first gen. So I know the meaning of work b/c my dad broke his back to build his business. I'm passing that along to my own children - that you need to work your way up. So rather than "farm out" jobs, maybe we need to remind our own children that they're NOT TOO GOOD for many jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

You're failing to see the point. The point is: the research shows NOT that we have an emergency with illegal entry; but rather a mismatch with our legalization of immigration and our current and future labor needs (especially low-skill) in light of our demographics. The rational policy response to to focus on creating legal immigration routes. Yet, your side focuses on demonizing illegal immigrants rhetorically, and treating them brutally. It is not a rational policy response ... unless you're more interested in stirring up animus towards illegal immigrants.

The BEST policy platform for immigration is: reform to provide us with the legal migrants we need, and treat everyone humanely.

Have you ever thought that maybe - just perhaps - if we were able to enforce our borders and curb illegal immigration to a mere trickle, that we could then go about reforming our immigration laws to allow more unskilled workers to secure work permits?

Nobody even wants to think about doing this when we have millions - yes, millions - of unskilled workers living freely, but illegally, in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So now you're hating on Japan? Isn't that an anti-liberal measure?

Read the articles and try to engage intelligently, tx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

I don't know what your point is. Do you think we should have a permanent underclass of low-skill workers who should never be able to move up?

I think that every society will naturally have an underclass, and there are enough people domestically to fill that need. Some people will move up, some won't. There is no shame in that.

Yes, there are industries that are heavily reliant on illegal migrant labor. That's not the thing you want to encourage - both for the sake of businesses, and for the sake of migrants they exploit. This problem won't be solved by legalizing migrants because legalized migrants won't find these jobs attractive anymore.

That's the ENTIRE point. It's hypocritical to rely on illegal labor on the one hand, and not work to regularize it. Democrats do not want to encourage illegal immigration - they want a rational immigration policy that creates a stable labor force (coupled with labor rights). So now we are veering into other policy differences that go beyond immigration, like minimum wage, health care, unions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

You're failing to see the point. The point is: the research shows NOT that we have an emergency with illegal entry; but rather a mismatch with our legalization of immigration and our current and future labor needs (especially low-skill) in light of our demographics. The rational policy response to to focus on creating legal immigration routes. Yet, your side focuses on demonizing illegal immigrants rhetorically, and treating them brutally. It is not a rational policy response ... unless you're more interested in stirring up animus towards illegal immigrants.

The BEST policy platform for immigration is: reform to provide us with the legal migrants we need, and treat everyone humanely.

"Legal migrants we need" is something that rational people can disagree about. Policies respond to societal needs but policies also shape societies.

I fully agree that rational people can disagree. Yet, I haven't seen a single person here actually engage rationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

I don't know what your point is. Do you think we should have a permanent underclass of low-skill workers who should never be able to move up?

I think that every society will naturally have an underclass, and there are enough people domestically to fill that need. Some people will move up, some won't. There is no shame in that.

Yes, there are industries that are heavily reliant on illegal migrant labor. That's not the thing you want to encourage - both for the sake of businesses, and for the sake of migrants they exploit. This problem won't be solved by legalizing migrants because legalized migrants won't find these jobs attractive anymore.

That's the ENTIRE point. It's hypocritical to rely on illegal labor on the one hand, and not work to regularize it. Democrats do not want to encourage illegal immigration - they want a rational immigration policy that creates a stable labor force (coupled with labor rights). So now we are veering into other policy differences that go beyond immigration, like minimum wage, health care, unions.

The actions of Democrats in Congress and the words and promises of Democrats running for president totally contradict this statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP’s thread title is completely misleading.

But that sort of intentional distortion is increasingly common among democrats these days.

Not only misleading, but it draws a totally false equivalency. Comparing immigration in the US to Japan? Please.

I can say, without a doubt, that the vast majority of conservatives are all for legal immigration.

It's the ILLEGAL entry that's at issue here.

You're failing to see the point. The point is: the research shows NOT that we have an emergency with illegal entry; but rather a mismatch with our legalization of immigration and our current and future labor needs (especially low-skill) in light of our demographics. The rational policy response to to focus on creating legal immigration routes. Yet, your side focuses on demonizing illegal immigrants rhetorically, and treating them brutally. It is not a rational policy response ... unless you're more interested in stirring up animus towards illegal immigrants.

The BEST policy platform for immigration is: reform to provide us with the legal migrants we need, and treat everyone humanely.

Have you ever thought that maybe - just perhaps - if we were able to enforce our borders and curb illegal immigration to a mere trickle, that we could then go about reforming our immigration laws to allow more unskilled workers to secure work permits?

Nobody even wants to think about doing this when we have millions - yes, millions - of unskilled workers living freely, but illegally, in our country.

No, I think that immigration reform has to come first or at the same time. As it is, the Trump administration is expending tremendous resources and political capital on things like tearing babies away from mothers, while not working on immigration reform, and taking away resources from things like actually pursuing drug and human traffickers at the border (which everyone can agree is important). A practical approach would likely recognize that trying to deport everyone that we have here now would be tremendously costly, so that would have to factor in.

If your overriding focus is "ILLEGALS ARE BAD!!" then that gets in the way of thinking rationally about policy.

[Anonymous]

Why don't we support more social policies that encourage and enable people to have more babies, instead of importing future workers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

I don't know what your point is. Do you think we should have a permanent underclass of low-skill workers who should never be able to move up?

I think that every society will naturally have an underclass, and there are enough people domestically to fill that need. Some people will move up, some won't. There is no shame in that.

Yes, there are industries that are heavily reliant on illegal migrant labor. That's not the thing you want to encourage - both for the sake of businesses, and for the sake of migrants they exploit. This problem won't be solved by legalizing migrants because legalized migrants won't find these jobs attractive anymore.

That's the ENTIRE point. It's hypocritical to rely on illegal labor on the one hand, and not work to regularize it. Democrats do not want to encourage illegal immigration - they want a rational immigration policy that creates a stable labor force (coupled with labor rights). So now we are veering into other policy differences that go beyond immigration, like minimum wage, health care, unions.

The actions of Democrats in Congress and the words and promises of Democrats running for president totally contradict this statement.

Ok well the words and actions of Republicans show that they hate brown people and Muslims and want to create animus against immigrants as an electoral issue for their white base, and it's working.

See how far that kind of argumentation goes?

Please, try to engage, and get past the slogans. I'd like to THINK you are smarter than that, although I have yet to see much intelligent engagement here. Pretty much the only smart thing I have heard anyone say on this thread is that the wellbeing of workers does not necesarily coincide with the wellbeing of the economy. To which I say -- good point, and Bernie would like to have a word with you!

[Anonymous]

test

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get it. It's only a better job if you compare it with subsistence farming in Guatemala. Once you're legal in the country with access to any job at all, a different set of criteria will come into play. Why would a Guatemalan framer charge less than an American one if both are legal?

I will type it out again because I think you missed it the first time:

Illegal migrants take jobs that Americans won't because they have no access to any other American jobs. Once they have access to ALL American jobs, the kinds of jobs that illegals used to do begin to look much less attractive.

I don't know what your point is. Do you think we should have a permanent underclass of low-skill workers who should never be able to move up?

I think that every society will naturally have an underclass, and there are enough people domestically to fill that need. Some people will move up, some won't. There is no shame in that.

Yes, there are industries that are heavily reliant on illegal migrant labor. That's not the thing you want to encourage - both for the sake of businesses, and for the sake of migrants they exploit. This problem won't be solved by legalizing migrants because legalized migrants won't find these jobs attractive anymore.

That's the ENTIRE point. It's hypocritical to rely on illegal labor on the one hand, and not work to regularize it. Democrats do not want to encourage illegal immigration - they want a rational immigration policy that creates a stable labor force (coupled with labor rights). So now we are veering into other policy differences that go beyond immigration, like minimum wage, health care, unions.

The actions of Democrats in Congress and the words and promises of Democrats running for president totally contradict this statement.

Ok well the words and actions of Republicans show that they hate brown people and Muslims and want to create animus against immigrants as an electoral issue for their white base, and it's working.

See how far that kind of argumentation goes?

Please, try to engage, and get past the slogans. I'd like to THINK you are smarter than that, although I have yet to see much intelligent engagement here. Pretty much the only smart thing I have heard anyone say on this thread is that the wellbeing of workers does not necesarily coincide with the wellbeing of the economy. To which I say -- good point, and Bernie would like to have a word with you!

When Democrats get serious about curbing illegal immigration instead of making it easier for them to get here and stay here - we can talk.
I frankly am not interested in making those already here "legal" until we can ensure that the constant flow coming in will slow incredibly, if not stop altogether.
And, even then, I am not at all in favor of rewarding those who break our laws.

We tried this under Reagan, and the Dems did not keep their promise.

[Anonymous]

"Forbidden to post on this forum" - why exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't we support more social policies that encourage and enable people to have more babies, instead of importing future workers?

I'm in favor of better policies to support families, but history shows that women chose to have fewer babies as soon as they get access to birth control and resources. We would have to do a LOT just to get a small uptick. Even families that have plenty of resources tend to stop at 2 now.