SCOTUS on Gerrymander

Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Immigration is a broad topic, and immigrants from 1st world countries are generally a net benefit for the economy, but that's not the immigration we're seeing. The general Finnish unemployment rate hovers around 9%. A lot of our own citizens can't find work. Importing more people in this situation simply increases competition in the labor market, and put downward pressure on wages. I mean how can some illiterate goat herder from Somalia find meaningful employment, if even native Finns cannot? The end result is that a lot of these immigrants end up on welfare (by necessity) which makes them a net drain on the Finnish economy. It also puts financial pressure on those welfare systems, which means that there's increasing amount of pressure to reduce welfare at a time when people need it the most. This is also the reason why many "populist" anti-immigration voters come from parties that have traditionally represented the working class (the working class is hurt the most by low skill immigration). Immigration would be a silver bullet if we could attract more skilled immigrants, but low skilled immigrants just make the situation worse. Generous welfare and open borders are a combination that simply does not work.

But I suppose that's enough about Finland, I don't want to derail your thread about gerrymandering.

You sure you don't want to move to Alabama and run for Congress here in the US? You'd fit right in. The gerrymandering will help you throughout your entire life I'm sure. I believe it will be effective for longer then you believe.

You are just wrong btw, and did it ever occur to you that those low wage natives you are vouching for might be the ones mooching the system in a cynical way? I see a lot of poor and unemployed in my area and almost all of them are white Americans.


'But these immigrants do not qualify for the vast majority of public benefits — including food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That’s true even though undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to these programs.'

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/4/16094684/trump-immigrants-welfare

You are right though if you want round two of demonstrating your racist beliefs you should start another thread.

Moderator Action: Don't accuse anyone of having racist beliefs unless they actually show them in the thread. Otherwise, it's simply flaming. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You sure you don't want to move to Alabama and run for Congress here in the US? You'd fit right in. The gerrymandering will help you throughout your entire life I'm sure. I believe it will be effective for longer then you believe.

You are just wrong btw, and did it ever occur to you that those low wage natives you are vouching for might be the ones mooching the system in a cynical way? I see a lot of poor and unemployed in my area and almost all of them are white Americans.


'But these immigrants do not qualify for the vast majority of public benefits — including food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That’s true even though undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to these programs.'

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/4/16094684/trump-immigrants-welfare

You are right though if you want round two of demonstrating your racist beliefs you should start another thread.

I really don't see what's supposed to be so wrong or even racist about that post. Sounds more like you just insulted another user for no apparent reason.

Immigration is never just a black and white issue. And Hehehe is completely right in saying that a nation like Finland does in fact get hurt by it. Immigration of large numbers of unskilled workers does work and can even be necessary in places that have a huge requirement for more cheap labour, it does not help a country that doesn't require these kind of workers and which has an extensive social security net.

The USA is a prime example for a nation that needs a ton of workers to fill cheap jobs, massively cutting down on migration doesn't help its economy at all. Finland, however, is a clear example for a nation that does not gain anything by adding tons of unskilled or underskilled workers. There just aren't any jobs for them, local unemployment isn't at a level where adding more workers makes any sense. As such, adding more people simply means putting more into the social security networks, which puts a bigger financial strain on the country. And since this is Europe and the EU, people generally do qualify for a ton of social securities regardless of their legal status.

It makes no sense whatsoever to post some reports about the US, when the situation in the USA has no similarity at all to that in Finland, which is the place Hehehe was talking about. And in the same way, one obviously can't apply the situation in a country like Finland to a nation like the USA. The countries are simply too different in terms of circumstances, needs and general setup of social security.
 
Fill cheap jobs. There aren't enough spots in nursing programs to meet qualified applicants and there isn't a glut of nurses. Entry manual labor salaries aren't exactly smashing at any point in the last 20 years. When there is a bump in decent-paying hiring, unemployment usually jumps, given the way we track it, because people surge back trying to snag them. Not sure where all these white collars are desperate for low-paid service. CA? NY? WA? Is it Portland/Seattle again? Why is it always Seattle? :mischief:
 
Unfortunately, reality is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Immigration is a broad topic, and immigrants from 1st world countries are generally a net benefit for the economy, but that's not the immigration we're seeing. The general Finnish unemployment rate hovers around 9%. A lot of our own citizens can't find work. Importing more people in this situation simply increases competition in the labor market, and put downward pressure on wages. I mean how can some illiterate goat herder from Somalia find meaningful employment, if even native Finns cannot? The end result is that a lot of these immigrants end up on welfare (by necessity) which makes them a net drain on the Finnish economy. It also puts financial pressure on those welfare systems, which means that there's increasing amount of pressure to reduce welfare at a time when people need it the most. This is also the reason why many "populist" anti-immigration voters come from parties that have traditionally represented the working class (the working class is hurt the most by low skill immigration). Immigration would be a silver bullet if we could attract more skilled immigrants, but low skilled immigrants just make the situation worse. Generous welfare and open borders are a combination that simply does not work.

But I suppose that's enough about Finland, I don't want to derail your thread about gerrymandering.

There is probably jobs in FInlands natives don't want to do and that goat herder from Somalia will do it. However there is likely a finite number of those jobs available. In the USA building a wall won't do much as long as business employ them under the table. USA would need a top to bottom reform making it easier to hire immigrant legally but perhaps capping the numbers combined with a skills based visa system. And make penalties for hiring illegals harsher and enforce them.
 
You sure you don't want to move to Alabama and run for Congress here in the US? You'd fit right in. The gerrymandering will help you throughout your entire life I'm sure. I believe it will be effective for longer then you believe.
What is this argument? Finland uses a system of proportional representation, and I have no desire to move to the US nor to switch to a FPTP system. I don't know, maybe the US should switch to a system of proportional representation too? Then again, it seems unlikely that one could pass any reforms in the current situation
You are just wrong btw, and did it ever occur to you that those low wage natives you are vouching for might be the ones mooching the system in a cynical way? I see a lot of poor and unemployed in my area and almost all of them are white Americans.
First of all, I never claimed that immigrants are "cynically mooching off the system". And I know that you didn't claim that I did, but I just want to put that out there. I've no doubt that the majority of immigrants are good people who want to contribute to this country and to build a better life for themselves. All I'm saying is that as things stand, it is difficult for them to do this.

Second, perhaps it is true that native Finns are "mooching off the system". I don't know how you would prove such claims, or what you're proposing we do about it. I suppose we could move to a system that is more like the US system. We could cut welfare and all that, but there are a lot of problems with that.
'But these immigrants do not qualify for the vast majority of public benefits — including food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That’s true even though undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to these programs.'

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/4/16094684/trump-immigrants-welfare
I've no desire to rack up infractions arguing US immigration policy, as I'm not an American. If you think that immigration works for you guys, great. I will simply state for the record that I disagree. I'm not sure it's working out for the US either. This case could be argued, even if I'm not going to do that here (we can agree to disagree, right?). Also, US sees a lot of high skill immigration which is both beneficial and different from low skill immigration.

There is probably jobs in FInlands natives don't want to do and that goat herder from Somalia will do it. However there is likely a finite number of those jobs available. In the USA building a wall won't do much as long as business employ them under the table. USA would need a top to bottom reform making it easier to hire immigrant legally but perhaps capping the numbers combined with a skills based visa system. And make penalties for hiring illegals harsher and enforce them.
In Finland, it seems to be low skill labor that's hit hardest by unemployment. And there's a never-ending debate about the welfare benefits (why should anyone, immigrant or native, take a low paying job if welfare benefits pay more? Why should any jobs be so low paying that even welfare benefits pay more? etc.). But yeah, things are different in the US, although even I don't think that the wall is a good idea
 
What is this argument? Finland uses a system of proportional representation, and I have no desire to move to the US nor to switch to a FPTP system. I don't know, maybe the US should switch to a system of proportional representation too? Then again, it seems unlikely that one could pass any reforms in the current situation

First of all, I never claimed that immigrants are "cynically mooching off the system". And I know that you didn't claim that I did, but I just want to put that out there. I've no doubt that the majority of immigrants are good people who want to contribute to this country and to build a better life for themselves. All I'm saying is that as things stand, it is difficult for them to do this.

Second, perhaps it is true that native Finns are "mooching off the system". I don't know how you would prove such claims, or what you're proposing we do about it. I suppose we could move to a system that is more like the US system. We could cut welfare and all that, but there are a lot of problems with that.

I've no desire to rack up infractions arguing US immigration policy, as I'm not an American. If you think that immigration works for you guys, great. I will simply state for the record that I disagree. I'm not sure it's working out for the US either. This case could be argued, even if I'm not going to do that here (we can agree to disagree, right?). Also, US sees a lot of high skill immigration which is both beneficial and different from low skill immigration.


In Finland, it seems to be low skill labor that's hit hardest by unemployment. And there's a never-ending debate about the welfare benefits (why should anyone, immigrant or native, take a low paying job if welfare benefits pay more? Why should any jobs be so low paying that even welfare benefits pay more? etc.). But yeah, things are different in the US, although even I don't think that the wall is a good idea

Here immigrants take low paying jobs because they don't qualify for welfare or its a path to citizenship. Problem is we have had mass immigration in the last 10 years and wages have been a bit stagnant and house prices have gone nuts and are very expensive fore the median wage earners.
 
Here immigrants take low paying jobs because they don't qualify for welfare or its a path to citizenship. Problem is we have had mass immigration in the last 10 years and wages have been a bit stagnant and house prices have gone nuts and are very expensive fore the median wage earners.
So New Zealand has been able to turn immigration into a net benefit? Maybe we should consider making our system more like the system in New Zealand then.
'But these immigrants do not qualify for the vast majority of public benefits — including food stamps, Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That’s true even though undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to these programs.'

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/4/16094684/trump-immigrants-welfare
By the way, thanks for sharing these links. I often see these claims being made, but up until now, I haven't seen a source for them. Interesting stuff. From VOX's own citations:
https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households said:
In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

  • The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.
  • The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.
  • At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.
  • Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.
  • The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households
...

Workers. A popular misconception about the American welfare system is that it mainly benefits people who are not in the labor force. In fact, most means-tested anti-poverty programs are open to low-wage workers. For that reason, limiting the analysis to households with at least one worker, as Table 4 does, only modestly reduces the welfare cost estimates. The drop is especially small for immigrant households — from an overall cost of $6,234 in Table 2 to $5,340 in Table 4 — because 84 percent of immigrant households already contain a worker (vs. 73 percent of native households). Therefore, the higher welfare spending on immigrant households compared to native households is not due to a lack of work among immigrants. The difference is better explained by the demographic factors analyzed below.

...

This study focuses on the cost of major welfare programs used by immigrant and native households. By contrast, a complete fiscal analysis would measure the cost of all government services and compare those costs with the taxes paid by each type of household. Some readers may wonder whether broadening the analysis would reveal that immigrant households make up for their greater welfare cost by paying higher taxes. This is not the case. As the previous CIS study of welfare participation demonstrated, immigrant households pay only about 89 cents in federal income and payroll taxes for every dollar paid by native households.9

The aforementioned report by the National Research Council, which did measure all government expenditures and taxes paid, found that immigrant households cost taxpayers as much as $2,200 per year in the 1990s, depending on their state of residence.10 More recently, the Heritage Foundation's complete fiscal analysis (to which the author of this study contributed) estimated that the average legal immigrant household paid $4,344 less in taxes than it received in services in 2010, compared to a deficit of just $310 for the average native household.11 For the most up-to-date numbers, the National Research Council will release a new analysis later this year.
And this is just what their own citations say (you might think that the rest of the stuff they cite contradicts this, but it doesn't). In any case, if United States, the land of immigrants, can't make this work, I'm not sure we can either
 
So New Zealand has been able to turn immigration into a net benefit? Maybe we should consider making our system more like the system in New Zealand then.

By the way, thanks for sharing these links. I often see these claims being made, but up until now, I haven't seen a source for them. Interesting stuff. From VOX's own citations:

And this is just what their own citations say (you might think that the rest of the stuff they cite contradicts this, but it doesn't). In any case, if United States, the land of immigrants, can't make this work, I'm not sure we can either

This is not a thread about immigration, please start a topic on immigration if you like.
 
Last edited:
Moderator Action: Please keep on topic about the US political system and the forthcoming legal responses. Thank you.
 
So New Zealand has been able to turn immigration into a net benefit? Maybe we should consider making our system more like the system in New Zealand then.

By the way, thanks for sharing these links. I often see these claims being made, but up until now, I haven't seen a source for them. Interesting stuff. From VOX's own citations:

And this is just what their own citations say (you might think that the rest of the stuff they cite contradicts this, but it doesn't). In any case, if United States, the land of immigrants, can't make this work, I'm not sure we can either

Generally yes, not in the last 10 years though.

Note that even here where we have a popular vote system the politicians have still figured out how to abuse it. SCOTUS and Gerrymandering have carried it to extremes in the USA since SCOTUS basically ruled corporate money is fine (freedom of expression) and now you have billion dollar elections. Here money helps but our right wing outspent the left wing party 3-1 (corporate donations 4 million vs 1.3 or 1,4 IIRC) and still lost.

Here you can win an election on 48% of the vote, its possible on 43% (need 51% theoretically). Kind of like in theory in the USA you could win an election on 21-23% of the popular vote (or about half of Trumps support). That could also happen here but would require something really weird to happen (lots of small parties failing to hit 5% but getting 3-4% each of the vote).

In 10 years time in the USA I don't think it will matter and Gerrymandering in the present electoral borders will backfire on the Republicans. Assuming Trump goes down in flames in 2020, that is not 100%. The politicians will always game the system so some extent. Often backfires though (voters get sick of it, opposition starts doing the same tricks, electoral borders change etc).
 
I have yet to see evidence for gerrymandering backfiring in a systematic way. In any case, there is a non-zero chance the supreme court will officially endorse extreme gerrymandering when the cases under consideration are ruled on by them later this year.
 
In 10 years time in the USA I don't think it will matter and Gerrymandering in the present electoral borders will backfire on the Republicans. Assuming Trump goes down in flames in 2020, that is not 100%. The politicians will always game the system so some extent. Often backfires though (voters get sick of it, opposition starts doing the same tricks, electoral borders change etc).

Will we make it another ten years without convulsive change? I'm not certain anymore.
 
Pretty sure what that actually shows, hehe, is that the people with the kids are paying for the future the most. I'm not sure the levels of aid cited are really adequate compensation for the subsidized old ages those lifting less are expecting to recieve.
 
Pretty sure what that actually shows, hehe, is that the people with the kids are paying for the future the most. I'm not sure the levels of aid cited are really adequate compensation for the subsidized old ages those lifting less are expecting to recieve.
We actually had a thread about immigration. I wonder what ever happened to that, it wasn't even locked, just deleted
 
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/hofeller-republican-gerrymandering-north-carolina.amp

The latest bombshell from the formerly secret files of the GOP’s top gerrymandering guru emerged on Thursday, and it’s astounding: Voting rights advocates claim to have evidence that North Carolina Republican lawmakers repeatedly lied to a federal court, and to the public, in a successful effort to delay a special election that threatened their legislative supermajority.

What do you do when the Republican party holds the rest of the nation in contempt? How does one combat on of the two political parties being this corrupt?
 
My favorite line.
They also argue that Hofeller’s daughter, Stephanie Hofeller Lizon, took advantage of her mother, Kathy, in order to obtain the files.
Like that changes anything. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Yeah so everyone has some background (from memory, apologies if there are errors) -

The GOP paid a strategist to help them redraw legislative districts to give them maximum advantage. I think he helped nationwide but he was definitely used to re-draw North Carolina's maps. NC was sued over how gerrymandered their maps were and during the court proceedings, the GOP argued they were not prepared to redraw districts fast enough to support the election (i.e. they argued the election had to use their current maps) and argued they never even considered race while drawing up the maps. This is significant because:

1) The election was allowed to proceed with the old maps because of the claim they didn't have time to redraw them
2) The courts have previously stated that it is totally legal to gerrymander as long as you are doing it only for political advantage and there is no race component

Well that consultant died and his estranged daughter got a hold of his hard drives which she turned over to the GOP's adversary in the lawsuit. It turns out basically every defense the GOP used was a lie. They had multiple alternate maps nearly complete at the time of the law suit and all of the maps had very detailed racial data. There has also been a lot of emails turned over which show the GOP knowingly lied and mislead the courts and showed a clear racial bias in their gerrymandering.

If I'm not mistaken, they were allowed to redraw the maps after the election which allowed them to maintain their supermajority in NC's legislature and then afterward drew new maps which were almost as bad as the old ones (and they knew this). They did lose their supermajority in a following election but they're doing their best to ensure they continue with maps that are as gerrymandered as they can get away with.

My fear is that this will be decided on the race issue which will allow the GOP to continue gerrymandering to their heart's content. We already knew their claims about not drawing racist maps were a lie and we now have the proof but this sort of thing is nearly impossible to prove in other instances unless you know, you get a lucky break like the head strategist dying and his kid turning over all of his files to the opposition. In other words, if the courts don't stop gerrymandering on other than racist grounds, it's going to keep happening.
 
How does one combat on of the two political parties being this corrupt?

Just for the record, first they thought I was joking, then they thought I was stupid when I said that Obama should suspend the transition of power and arrest the important Republicans in January 2017. But it's too late now.
 
People that read that are more likely to use it as a justification for Trump suspend the transition of power if he loses the election.
 
Just for the record, first they thought I was joking, then they thought I was stupid when I said that Obama should suspend the transition of power and arrest the important Republicans in January 2017. But it's too late now.
I had hoped that Hillary would have put up a fight over the election and gone down swinging instead of just conceding. I mean, that's what Trump said he would have done. Hell, he doesn't even accept the results as-is. As with so many other things, she was a disappointment on this.

People that read that are more likely to use it as a justification for Trump suspend the transition of power if he loses the election.
There's a good chance he'd do this regardless of what anyone else does.... Like I said, he still disputes the election he won because he lost the popular vote.
 
Top Bottom