Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh you can stuff it. Please, detail here all the progressive, labor-rights policies you advocate for?

Regularlizing immigration is PRECISELY to protect workers right. Having an "illegal" class of workers is a recipe for exploitation.

Stuff it? I thought you're all about intelligent debate and research and whatnot?

You have this weird, utopic idea that illegal migrants who put up with low pay, terrible conditions, and utter absence of employee rights for no reason other than not being able to work better jobs, will continue working in the same terrible jobs once they are legally able to work anywhere else. Why? You think they are loyal to their slumlords?

The industries that rely on illegal migrant labor aren't doing it because they love migrants. They do it because they love paying artificially low wages and ignoring benefits and employee rights. That's what you are arguing should be preserved. And you are somehow persisting in your conviction that people who currently eat margarine because they can't have butter will weirdly continue doing that even when butter becomes available.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

No amount of "respecting" people who work at Chik-Fil-A is going to mean that someone makes the rational choice to work in fast food rather than in an easier, higher-paid profession, if they have that opportunity. While I agree in the dignity of all workers, I'm not sure what your point has to do with immigration.

For some people, working at Chik-Fil-A IS an easier, higher-paid profession. There are enough people like that domestically.

yup

Would you rather work in 90 degree heat putting up siding or in a CFA behind the register?

And guess who's working BOTH types of jobs? In many cases, it ain't the young, white American! So it has a lot to do with respect - but also with growth in skills that are transferable from one job to the next (hopefully "better") job.

But how many parents are making their kids work if they don't have to? That, my friend, is part of the teaching of respect.

I'm glad my teen is working for a hard ass. She respects his rules; he respects her as an employee. She works her way up to manager, which is how this boss operates. I'm not anti-immigration. I'm first gen. But there are enough able-bodied young citizens who could (and should) do these jobs. But b/c their parents treat them as though they're made of glass, they're not applying to those jobs.

So child labor is your answer? Ok.

What a way to interpret a post! lol! You are a moron.

So thanks for proving my point.

I guess you think a PT summer job is child labor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

No amount of "respecting" people who work at Chik-Fil-A is going to mean that someone makes the rational choice to work in fast food rather than in an easier, higher-paid profession, if they have that opportunity. While I agree in the dignity of all workers, I'm not sure what your point has to do with immigration.

For some people, working at Chik-Fil-A IS an easier, higher-paid profession. There are enough people like that domestically.

yup

Would you rather work in 90 degree heat putting up siding or in a CFA behind the register?

And guess who's working BOTH types of jobs? In many cases, it ain't the young, white American! So it has a lot to do with respect - but also with growth in skills that are transferable from one job to the next (hopefully "better") job.

But how many parents are making their kids work if they don't have to? That, my friend, is part of the teaching of respect.

I'm glad my teen is working for a hard ass. She respects his rules; he respects her as an employee. She works her way up to manager, which is how this boss operates. I'm not anti-immigration. I'm first gen. But there are enough able-bodied young citizens who could (and should) do these jobs. But b/c their parents treat them as though they're made of glass, they're not applying to those jobs.

So child labor is your answer? Ok.

Anonymous wrote:
Oh you can stuff it. Please, detail here all the progressive, labor-rights policies you advocate for?

Regularlizing immigration is PRECISELY to protect workers right. Having an "illegal" class of workers is a recipe for exploitation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are misstating your opponent's position to make your own look better. No one here advocated stopping ALL entries. The argument to deport all illegal immigrants (as they should be) is not driven by anti-immigrant people - as they typically have no problem with legal entrants. It's driven by the passionate rejection of the current practice where people stream across the border not caring about rules, not caring about lines, not caring about anything but their own desires. People who opposed illegal immigration feel as if the folks crossing the border looked them in the eye and said, I don't care about your rules, I don't care about what you say, I'm getting in. I'm not sure what your argument is in favor of keeping these people over those who have waited in line, sometimes for years, paying thousands of dollars in fees, going through lengthy background checks, doing everything by the book and STILL sometimes not getting in.

Border arrests going down doesn't mean necessarily that fewer people are crossing over. It may just mean that fewer people are getting arrested. Bring proof first that the arrest to crossing ratio has remained steady.

So you just don't like illegal immigrants they are a moral affront to you. Yet, you still need to accept that our economy depends on them, and deporting them all would be a wasteful disaster.

The argument for not deporting them is that it would be shooting our nose to spite our faces.

If you can't put aside your animus to see that, then you admit you hate immigrants more than you care about the wellbeing of the country overall.

You are confusing the wellbeing of the country with cheap strawberries.

Great job pretending to be progressive while arguing passionately that we simply can't get by without a massive, underpaid, right-less underclass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

No amount of "respecting" people who work at Chik-Fil-A is going to mean that someone makes the rational choice to work in fast food rather than in an easier, higher-paid profession, if they have that opportunity. While I agree in the dignity of all workers, I'm not sure what your point has to do with immigration.

For some people, working at Chik-Fil-A IS an easier, higher-paid profession. There are enough people like that domestically.

yup

Would you rather work in 90 degree heat putting up siding or in a CFA behind the register?

And guess who's working BOTH types of jobs? In many cases, it ain't the young, white American! So it has a lot to do with respect - but also with growth in skills that are transferable from one job to the next (hopefully "better") job.

But how many parents are making their kids work if they don't have to? That, my friend, is part of the teaching of respect.

I'm glad my teen is working for a hard ass. She respects his rules; he respects her as an employee. She works her way up to manager, which is how this boss operates. I'm not anti-immigration. I'm first gen. But there are enough able-bodied young citizens who could (and should) do these jobs. But b/c their parents treat them as though they're made of glass, they're not applying to those jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are misstating your opponent's position to make your own look better. No one here advocated stopping ALL entries. The argument to deport all illegal immigrants (as they should be) is not driven by anti-immigrant people - as they typically have no problem with legal entrants. It's driven by the passionate rejection of the current practice where people stream across the border not caring about rules, not caring about lines, not caring about anything but their own desires. People who opposed illegal immigration feel as if the folks crossing the border looked them in the eye and said, I don't care about your rules, I don't care about what you say, I'm getting in. I'm not sure what your argument is in favor of keeping these people over those who have waited in line, sometimes for years, paying thousands of dollars in fees, going through lengthy background checks, doing everything by the book and STILL sometimes not getting in.

Border arrests going down doesn't mean necessarily that fewer people are crossing over. It may just mean that fewer people are getting arrested. Bring proof first that the arrest to crossing ratio has remained steady.

So you just don't like illegal immigrants they are a moral affront to you. Yet, you still need to accept that our economy depends on them, and deporting them all would be a wasteful disaster.

The argument for not deporting them is that it would be shooting our nose to spite our faces.

If you can't put aside your animus to see that, then you admit you hate immigrants more than you care about the wellbeing of the country overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are misstating your opponent's position to make your own look better. No one here advocated stopping ALL entries. The argument to deport all illegal immigrants (as they should be) is not driven by anti-immigrant people - as they typically have no problem with legal entrants. It's driven by the passionate rejection of the current practice where people stream across the border not caring about rules, not caring about lines, not caring about anything but their own desires. People who opposed illegal immigration feel as if the folks crossing the border looked them in the eye and said, I don't care about your rules, I don't care about what you say, I'm getting in. I'm not sure what your argument is in favor of keeping these people over those who have waited in line, sometimes for years, paying thousands of dollars in fees, going through lengthy background checks, doing everything by the book and STILL sometimes not getting in.

Border arrests going down doesn't mean necessarily that fewer people are crossing over. It may just mean that fewer people are getting arrested. Bring proof first that the arrest to crossing ratio has remained steady.

So you just don't like illegal immigrants they are a moral affront to you. Yet, you still need to accept that our economy depends on them, and deporting them all would be a wasteful disaster.

The argument for not deporting them is that it would be shooting our nose to spite our faces.

If you can't put aside your animus to see that, then you admit you hate immigrants more than you care about the wellbeing of the country overall.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

No amount of "respecting" people who work at Chik-Fil-A is going to mean that someone makes the rational choice to work in fast food rather than in an easier, higher-paid profession, if they have that opportunity. While I agree in the dignity of all workers, I'm not sure what your point has to do with immigration.

For some people, working at Chik-Fil-A IS an easier, higher-paid profession. There are enough people like that domestically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are misstating your opponent's position to make your own look better. No one here advocated stopping ALL entries. The argument to deport all illegal immigrants (as they should be) is not driven by anti-immigrant people - as they typically have no problem with legal entrants. It's driven by the passionate rejection of the current practice where people stream across the border not caring about rules, not caring about lines, not caring about anything but their own desires. People who opposed illegal immigration feel as if the folks crossing the border looked them in the eye and said, I don't care about your rules, I don't care about what you say, I'm getting in. I'm not sure what your argument is in favor of keeping these people over those who have waited in line, sometimes for years, paying thousands of dollars in fees, going through lengthy background checks, doing everything by the book and STILL sometimes not getting in.

Border arrests going down doesn't mean necessarily that fewer people are crossing over. It may just mean that fewer people are getting arrested. Bring proof first that the arrest to crossing ratio has remained steady.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

No amount of "respecting" people who work at Chik-Fil-A is going to mean that someone makes the rational choice to work in fast food rather than in an easier, higher-paid profession, if they have that opportunity. While I agree in the dignity of all workers, I'm not sure what your point has to do with immigration.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does that even mean? Trump is our president and he campaigned on xenophobic messages about "shithole countries" and the like. This is compounded by the media, but it doesn't come from the media. If you voted for Trump, you need to own that.