Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to deport people. You just have to make employment and the use of public resources impossible, and people will stop coming. People come for better economics, and if this becomes impossible, there is no incentive to come.

Which does not answer my original question: how do you propose to run the economy without enough low-skilled workers?

By employing low-skilled Americans and improving conditions in these jobs - rather than accepting as given that industries should stay in business by maintaining a poorly paid, right-less underclass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK

So here's the main point from the NPR article:

Lawmakers also passed a measure in December that will allow more foreign workers to enter the country, for longer periods of time and, in some cases, with a path toward attaining Japanese citizenship.

But apparently, xenophobia is posing a problem.

So here's where I'm confused by neo liberals. When people arrive here, we bend over backward to respect their culture, right? So why should anyone bash Japan's culture? their country, their business, correct?

Based on history - with immigrants coming from South and Central America - I don't think xenophobia really factors into the mix. Look at the growth, according to Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/



While growth is slowing down among Hispanics, general immigration growth is still expected among foreign-born - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/09/u-s-immigrant-population-projected-to-rise-even-as-share-falls-among-hispanics-asians/



I fail to see why OP has posted such an ALARMING message. lol

Perhaps you need to engage intelligently, my friend. TX

I appreciate that you posted actual research, I really do.

But, I'm not sure how it relates to immigration policy? Those charts seem to support what I am saying - that population growth (which is needed) is currently coming from immigrants to the US.

As for "bashing Japanese culture" -- I'm not doing that. Japan is just the best example of what happens when a 1st world country has restrictive immigration policies plus a tradition of xenophobia.

Here's the original post:

For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

So our population is growing, not shrinking - and growing with immigrants. Xenophobia, in our case, is the white person fearing the immigrant, right? If immigrants grow in number, control shifts.

We are nowhere close to what Japan looks like. Even if we restrict immigration, people have babies. Hispanics outnumber all other minority groups in the "baby arena." Blacks are second.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
2017 data

Using Japan as a comparison isn't a good analogy. We will never reach those levels of xenophobia, as we are not one race or one culture. And even if whites dominated the scene (and may continue to do so for a bit longer), you can't lump all whites into one cultural category.

I'm for legal immigration with easier pathways toward citizenship. That's my stance. If that's a conservative slant, so be it. I'm not critical of race or culture, as I'm first gen. However, we need to control who enters, as we simply cannot keep working in crisis mode.

Sure, regularize immigration. My point is that the anti-immigrant people around here seem to be more focused on deporting all illegal immigrants and stopping all entries. If that happens, we no longer have enough people. That position, I would argue, is solely one that is fueled by being anti-immigrant, not by rationally seeking out policy solutions.

As for "crisis mode" ... the crisis is largely created by Trump's propaganda. The long-term trend is for border arrests going down: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094

I don't trust much media. But my idea of crisis hits the psyche. At this point, it goes beyond numbers - true or fabricated (I don't know.) - and continues to divide us.

Trump didn't do this. It's always been, but the media is about profit. So until we all turn off our televisions & turn off our laptops, we'll never find the time to begin working on the community issues directly affecting us. You make change in ripples, not tsunamis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK

So here's the main point from the NPR article:

Lawmakers also passed a measure in December that will allow more foreign workers to enter the country, for longer periods of time and, in some cases, with a path toward attaining Japanese citizenship.

But apparently, xenophobia is posing a problem.

So here's where I'm confused by neo liberals. When people arrive here, we bend over backward to respect their culture, right? So why should anyone bash Japan's culture? their country, their business, correct?

Based on history - with immigrants coming from South and Central America - I don't think xenophobia really factors into the mix. Look at the growth, according to Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/



While growth is slowing down among Hispanics, general immigration growth is still expected among foreign-born - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/09/u-s-immigrant-population-projected-to-rise-even-as-share-falls-among-hispanics-asians/



I fail to see why OP has posted such an ALARMING message. lol

Perhaps you need to engage intelligently, my friend. TX

I appreciate that you posted actual research, I really do.

But, I'm not sure how it relates to immigration policy? Those charts seem to support what I am saying - that population growth (which is needed) is currently coming from immigrants to the US.

As for "bashing Japanese culture" -- I'm not doing that. Japan is just the best example of what happens when a 1st world country has restrictive immigration policies plus a tradition of xenophobia.

Here's the original post:

For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

So our population is growing, not shrinking - and growing with immigrants. Xenophobia, in our case, is the white person fearing the immigrant, right? If immigrants grow in number, control shifts.

We are nowhere close to what Japan looks like. Even if we restrict immigration, people have babies. Hispanics outnumber all other minority groups in the "baby arena." Blacks are second.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
2017 data

Using Japan as a comparison isn't a good analogy. We will never reach those levels of xenophobia, as we are not one race or one culture. And even if whites dominated the scene (and may continue to do so for a bit longer), you can't lump all whites into one cultural category.

I'm for legal immigration with easier pathways toward citizenship. That's my stance. If that's a conservative slant, so be it. I'm not critical of race or culture, as I'm first gen. However, we need to control who enters, as we simply cannot keep working in crisis mode.

Sure, regularize immigration. My point is that the anti-immigrant people around here seem to be more focused on deporting all illegal immigrants and stopping all entries. If that happens, we no longer have enough people. That position, I would argue, is solely one that is fueled by being anti-immigrant, not by rationally seeking out policy solutions.

As for "crisis mode" ... the crisis is largely created by Trump's propaganda. The long-term trend is for border arrests going down: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK

So here's the main point from the NPR article:

Lawmakers also passed a measure in December that will allow more foreign workers to enter the country, for longer periods of time and, in some cases, with a path toward attaining Japanese citizenship.

But apparently, xenophobia is posing a problem.

So here's where I'm confused by neo liberals. When people arrive here, we bend over backward to respect their culture, right? So why should anyone bash Japan's culture? their country, their business, correct?

Based on history - with immigrants coming from South and Central America - I don't think xenophobia really factors into the mix. Look at the growth, according to Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/



While growth is slowing down among Hispanics, general immigration growth is still expected among foreign-born - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/09/u-s-immigrant-population-projected-to-rise-even-as-share-falls-among-hispanics-asians/



I fail to see why OP has posted such an ALARMING message. lol

Perhaps you need to engage intelligently, my friend. TX

I appreciate that you posted actual research, I really do.

But, I'm not sure how it relates to immigration policy? Those charts seem to support what I am saying - that population growth (which is needed) is currently coming from immigrants to the US.

As for "bashing Japanese culture" -- I'm not doing that. Japan is just the best example of what happens when a 1st world country has restrictive immigration policies plus a tradition of xenophobia.

Here's the original post:

For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

So our population is growing, not shrinking - and growing with immigrants. Xenophobia, in our case, is the white person fearing the immigrant, right? If immigrants grow in number, control shifts.

We are nowhere close to what Japan looks like. Even if we restrict immigration, people have babies. Hispanics outnumber all other minority groups in the "baby arena." Blacks are second.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
2017 data

Using Japan as a comparison isn't a good analogy. We will never reach those levels of xenophobia, as we are not one race or one culture. And even if whites dominated the scene (and may continue to do so for a bit longer), you can't lump all whites into one cultural category.

I'm for legal immigration with easier pathways toward citizenship. That's my stance. If that's a conservative slant, so be it. I'm not critical of race or culture, as I'm first gen. However, we need to control who enters, as we simply cannot keep working in crisis mode.

Sure, regularize immigration. My point is that the anti-immigrant people around here seem to be more focused on deporting all illegal immigrants and stopping all entries. If that happens, we no longer have enough people. That position, I would argue, is solely one that is fueled by being anti-immigrant, not by rationally seeking out policy solutions.

As for "crisis mode" ... the crisis is largely created by Trump's propaganda. The long-term trend is for border arrests going down: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44319094

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK

So here's the main point from the NPR article:

Lawmakers also passed a measure in December that will allow more foreign workers to enter the country, for longer periods of time and, in some cases, with a path toward attaining Japanese citizenship.

But apparently, xenophobia is posing a problem.

So here's where I'm confused by neo liberals. When people arrive here, we bend over backward to respect their culture, right? So why should anyone bash Japan's culture? their country, their business, correct?

Based on history - with immigrants coming from South and Central America - I don't think xenophobia really factors into the mix. Look at the growth, according to Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/



While growth is slowing down among Hispanics, general immigration growth is still expected among foreign-born - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/09/u-s-immigrant-population-projected-to-rise-even-as-share-falls-among-hispanics-asians/



I fail to see why OP has posted such an ALARMING message. lol

Perhaps you need to engage intelligently, my friend. TX

I appreciate that you posted actual research, I really do.

But, I'm not sure how it relates to immigration policy? Those charts seem to support what I am saying - that population growth (which is needed) is currently coming from immigrants to the US.

As for "bashing Japanese culture" -- I'm not doing that. Japan is just the best example of what happens when a 1st world country has restrictive immigration policies plus a tradition of xenophobia.

Here's the original post:

For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

So our population is growing, not shrinking - and growing with immigrants. Xenophobia, in our case, is the white person fearing the immigrant, right? If immigrants grow in number, control shifts.

We are nowhere close to what Japan looks like. Even if we restrict immigration, people have babies. Hispanics outnumber all other minority groups in the "baby arena." Blacks are second.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
2017 data

Using Japan as a comparison isn't a good analogy. We will never reach those levels of xenophobia, as we are not one race or one culture. And even if whites dominated the scene (and may continue to do so for a bit longer), you can't lump all whites into one cultural category.

I'm for legal immigration with easier pathways toward citizenship. That's my stance. If that's a conservative slant, so be it. I'm not critical of race or culture, as I'm first gen. However, we need to control who enters, as we simply cannot keep working in crisis mode.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK

So here's the main point from the NPR article:

Lawmakers also passed a measure in December that will allow more foreign workers to enter the country, for longer periods of time and, in some cases, with a path toward attaining Japanese citizenship.

But apparently, xenophobia is posing a problem.

So here's where I'm confused by neo liberals. When people arrive here, we bend over backward to respect their culture, right? So why should anyone bash Japan's culture? their country, their business, correct?

Based on history - with immigrants coming from South and Central America - I don't think xenophobia really factors into the mix. Look at the growth, according to Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/



While growth is slowing down among Hispanics, general immigration growth is still expected among foreign-born - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/09/u-s-immigrant-population-projected-to-rise-even-as-share-falls-among-hispanics-asians/



I fail to see why OP has posted such an ALARMING message. lol

Perhaps you need to engage intelligently, my friend. TX

I appreciate that you posted actual research, I really do.

But, I'm not sure how it relates to immigration policy? Those charts seem to support what I am saying - that population growth (which is needed) is currently coming from immigrants to the US.

As for "bashing Japanese culture" -- I'm not doing that. Japan is just the best example of what happens when a 1st world country has restrictive immigration policies plus a tradition of xenophobia.

Here's the original post:

For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

So our population is growing, not shrinking - and growing with immigrants. Xenophobia, in our case, is the white person fearing the immigrant, right? If immigrants grow in number, control shifts.

We are nowhere close to what Japan looks like. Even if we restrict immigration, people have babies. Hispanics outnumber all other minority groups in the "baby arena." Blacks are second.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/births-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D
2017 data

Using Japan as a comparison isn't a good analogy. We will never reach those levels of xenophobia, as we are not one race or one culture. And even if whites dominated the scene (and may continue to do so for a bit longer), you can't lump all whites into one cultural category.

I'm for legal immigration with easier pathways toward citizenship. That's my stance. If that's a conservative slant, so be it. I'm not critical of race or culture, as I'm first gen. However, we need to control who enters, as we simply cannot keep working in crisis mode.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to deport people. You just have to make employment and the use of public resources impossible, and people will stop coming. People come for better economics, and if this becomes impossible, there is no incentive to come.

Which does not answer my original question: how do you propose to run the economy without enough low-skilled workers?

by being better parents and raising children to respect all jobs . . . The person prepping your food at Chik-Fil-A is no less important than your daddy in his law firm.

It's a mindset shift, and liberals and conservatives are equally to blame for creating an entitled generation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to deport people. You just have to make employment and the use of public resources impossible, and people will stop coming. People come for better economics, and if this becomes impossible, there is no incentive to come.

Which does not answer my original question: how do you propose to run the economy without enough low-skilled workers?

By employing low-skilled Americans and improving conditions in these jobs - rather than accepting as given that industries should stay in business by maintaining a poorly paid, right-less underclass.

nope the answer is automation. People aren't supposed to survive on a low-skilled job. You start there and then you are supposed to move up. These idiots think they should be paid 15 bucks an hour for being a fry cook at McDonalds for life lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to deport people. You just have to make employment and the use of public resources impossible, and people will stop coming. People come for better economics, and if this becomes impossible, there is no incentive to come.

Which does not answer my original question: how do you propose to run the economy without enough low-skilled workers?

By employing low-skilled Americans and improving conditions in these jobs - rather than accepting as given that industries should stay in business by maintaining a poorly paid, right-less underclass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK

So here's the main point from the NPR article:

Lawmakers also passed a measure in December that will allow more foreign workers to enter the country, for longer periods of time and, in some cases, with a path toward attaining Japanese citizenship.

But apparently, xenophobia is posing a problem.

So here's where I'm confused by neo liberals. When people arrive here, we bend over backward to respect their culture, right? So why should anyone bash Japan's culture? their country, their business, correct?

Based on history - with immigrants coming from South and Central America - I don't think xenophobia really factors into the mix. Look at the growth, according to Pew.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/18/how-the-u-s-hispanic-population-is-changing/



While growth is slowing down among Hispanics, general immigration growth is still expected among foreign-born - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/09/u-s-immigrant-population-projected-to-rise-even-as-share-falls-among-hispanics-asians/



I fail to see why OP has posted such an ALARMING message. lol

Perhaps you need to engage intelligently, my friend. TX

I appreciate that you posted actual research, I really do.

But, I'm not sure how it relates to immigration policy? Those charts seem to support what I am saying - that population growth (which is needed) is currently coming from immigrants to the US.

As for "bashing Japanese culture" -- I'm not doing that. Japan is just the best example of what happens when a 1st world country has restrictive immigration policies plus a tradition of xenophobia.

For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to deport people. You just have to make employment and the use of public resources impossible, and people will stop coming. People come for better economics, and if this becomes impossible, there is no incentive to come.

Which does not answer my original question: how do you propose to run the economy without enough low-skilled workers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

None of what you wrote is supported by anything other than animus against "illegals." Care to try again with your argument?

Seriously, I keep on giving you guys SO MANY CHANCES.

Telling everyone who disagrees with you they are unintelligent is a great route to the echo chamber. I mean, I think I made a pretty good argument that regularizing migrants turns them away from low-pay, bad-conditions jobs they occupy right now. So regularizing them won't really normalize the situation; on the contrary, it will drain away a source of cheap, right-less labor on which these industries currently rely.

No, you did not make a "good argument." A good argument is supported by published research. Got that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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!

I understand if you don't know this because you have no reason to, but getting green cards and citizenship under the Obama administration has been SIGNIFICANTLY restricted for Muslims.

So you're pro-Muslim immigration now?

Yes, I know that Obama failed to reform immigration. One of the biggest failures of his administration.

There is no need to get personal. You don't know me, and you don't know what I'm for or against.

I am, for instance, against canonization of Obama's administration on immigration. Aspiring Muslim immigrants were targeted under his rule. You just don't know it because it was done quietly.

again, I think that Obama failed on immigration. However, that does not provide any sort of response to Trumps much worse failure (and of course his MUCH worse treatment of Muslims).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't have to deport people. You just have to make employment and the use of public resources impossible, and people will stop coming. People come for better economics, and if this becomes impossible, there is no incentive to come.

Which does not answer my original question: how do you propose to run the economy without enough low-skilled workers?