Trump to destroy the lives of 800,000 American children, and is too much of a coward to own it.

[FriendlyFire]

How will this lead to higher wages? I don't see the connection

Its going to cost the US economy around $90 Billion, but since it mostly affects "Blue" states its not really an issue for the GOP. They can count it as a "win" and since election of Trump its all been about the winning

Gaslight <---------- We are here
Obstruct
Project

 

[civver_764]

As to the 'suppressing wages', this is where the nationalists are a lot like union workers. They want to prevent scabs from crossing the picket line, so that they can negotiate higher wages. It's why borders are perceived as 'leftist' by a huge portion of right-leaning economists.

That's a fair point. What I don't understand is why on earth the leftists aren't on my side here. I thought for sure we could reach common ground here (ok, that's a lie, but it does puzzle me).

But everyone else has to remember something about the US. All productivity gains go to the 0.1%. So yeah, in a simple model, importing people who're willing to work is a win/win for an economy. The only people who lose out are those who're less willing to work hard.

Maybe, but these people need jobs. They need to support their families. Why are we talking about importing cheap labor when we have American citizens dependent on welfare and unemployed? Doesn't make sense to me. Yeah sure, that might result in higher prices for things, but at least our economy would be firmly American. We would get some people off the street, reduce inequality, reduce crime, and in exchange the price of a tomato goes up a few cents. What's wrong with that? America first baby.

I mean you also have to consider what exactly you're advocating for here. I mean these are people that are essentially a class of slaves. The same arguments people make in favor of illegal immigrants today are eerily similar to arguments made in favor of slavery in the 19th century.

Trump harnessed this understanding. Blamed the immigrants for working harder for less.

I don't blame the immigrants for this. I blame them for breaking the law and coming here illegally. That does not demonstrate any form of respect for our nation and its laws.

If you're skeptical that these benefits outweigh the costs associated with increased competition - let me ask you this: do you think overall having less well-educated people who are beginning their prime working years is bad for America? I certainly don't think so.

I think it's good for the rich Americans and bad for the poor Americans. This is of course not factoring in cultural displacement, political displacement, increased welfare burden, increased crime, and so on. I will grant that DACA recipients are not likely to result in the last two, but I consider the first two very important. I also think DACA is just bad on the principles of it. You shouldn't reward people for breaking the law.

 

[Zkribbler]

... this is where the nationalists are a lot like union workers. They want to prevent scabs from crossing the picket line, ...

Question: When is the last time you saw a picket line in the US? The GOP's war on unions and, with them, middle-class pay raises has been wildly successful.

 

[Perfection]

I think it's good for the rich Americans and bad for the poor Americans. This is of course not factoring in cultural displacement, political displacement, increased welfare burden, increased crime, and so on. I will grant that DACA recipients are not likely to result in the last two, but I consider the first two very important. I also think DACA is just bad on the principles of it. You shouldn't reward people for breaking the law.

Whatever extent DACA recipients are bad for for poor people is due to a general failing to address US poverty. Through smart policymaking we should be able immigrant fueled economic gains to help native-born Americans out of poverty. I mean that way is better for everyone. I like that.

As far as cultural/political displacement goes - I'm not totally understanding what you feel is at stake here. What do we risk losing by not deporting DACA recipients. I mean even if you're bigoted against Muslims or Asians (which is still wrong but whatever we live in a screwed up world) why go after Catholic as hell Latinos? (85% of DACA recipients are Latino) In terms of shared moral values and belief systems Latinos seem like not much different then Irish or Italians or Germans - groups that have done perfectly well in America and have made it the fantastic place it is.

And while it's important to acknowledge that lawbreaking has occurred do note that in the case of DACA recipients:
1. They were minors at the time and thus not legally culpable
2. By agreeing to the terms of DACA they have both put their faith in the US government and made serious commitments to being a productive member of society. These are not the signs of a perennial lawbreaker, but that of someone who is trying to take responsibility for their situation.
Simply deporting them does not honor the above facts.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's not a punishment to remove someone from a country that they are not legally allowed to be in. If a man robs me and gives the money to his son I'm not punishing the son by taking my money back from him.

Of course you are. You're gung-ho to punish people who were minor children at the time their parents brought them across the border. Some of them are still minor children. If you want to deport anyone, kick the parents out. They're the ones who broke the law. Their children had no legal say in the matter.

My government? How about these asylum seekers who made the decision to go on a winter hike? I think they should clean up their act.

Yes, your government. Your clueless, racist 1%er buffoon who is currently pretending to be a president while the rest of the world alternates between laughing at him and shaking our heads in disgust. Two of his nicknames on the Canadian news comment boards are "Nero" and "Caligula." If you don't understand those references or why some would apply them to Trump, just ask.

Trump decided to prevent all Muslims from a specific list of countries from entering your country (claiming it was for "security" but surprise! he didn't include the country where most of the 9/11 terrorists actually came from). So some of the people from these countries who were in the U.S. got very nervous, very afraid of being deported, and decided to take their chances in Canada. They knew they couldn't apply for refugee status at a legal border crossing because of the Safe Country law, so they used a loophole that allows them to apply for refugee status if they enter illegally by walking across the border.

I am not saying these people are doing the right thing. It's certainly not the sane thing, to risk a Manitoba winter with totally inadequate preparation. Even I wouldn't go there in the winter, and I'm used to Canadian Prairie winters.

But these people are desperate - the Muslims, now the Haitians (currently living in tents in Montreal Olympic Stadium because there's nowhere else to put them while they're being processed), and we're wondering who will be the next group your hero targets who will be desperate enough to risk coming here by walking across fields, ditches, through forests, wading across creeks - all at a risky time of year. As I said, winter is coming. There have been some years when we've already had significant blizzards by this time.

Maybe if your hero wasn't so adamant that these people should be treated like garbage, they wouldn't be so desperate. And maybe there wouldn't be people in Canada saying WE should put up a wall. After all, for every one of these asylum seekers who makes it in, that's one more place down the queue that legitimate refugees and immigrant applicants have to move.

 

[Zkribbler]

There's a senator in Canada who wants to induce them to come there. English speaking, well educated, hard working, law abiding--these are the kind of people any country in its right mind would love to have!

 

[Ryika]

English speaking, well educated, hard working, law abiding--these are the kind of people any country in its right mind would love to have!

The refugees we've taken into Germany were also all English-speaking, well-educated, hard-working, and law-abiding, or at least that's what the media told us for a long time. Young too - most of them are kids, even though they look like they're in their twenties and dna-tests show they're in their twenties - and looking to get away from the horrible ideologies that they left behind.

Then it turned out that yes, some of them are indeed English-speaking, well-educated, hard-working, and law-abiding, and they were paraded around in the media. But as time went on, it became clear that a lot of them are not English-speaking, well-educated, hard-working, and law-abiding, and that some of them are neither of the things on that list. So I think you're doing yourself a disfavor if you think that all children of illegals are English-speaking, well-educated, hard-working, and law-abiding just because that sounds nice.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The refugees we've taken into Germany were also all English-speaking, well-educated, hard-working, and law-abiding, or at least that's what the media told us for a long time. Young too - most of them are kids, even though they look like they're in their twenties and dna-tests show they're in their twenties - and looking to get away from the horrible ideologies that they left behind.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Germany took in any Mexican refugees who were 20-year-old children looking to get away from the horrible ideologies they left behind.

Not that Catholicism is an ideology that I personally approve of, but oh well...

 

[plarq]

"It's not a punishment to remove someone from a country that they are not legally allowed to be in. If a man robs me and gives the money to his son I'm not punishing the son by taking my money back from him."

Actually it would be a legal hassle to take money back from his son, unless his son can survive well without that money in the first place.
Same for evicting squatters. It sounds legally plausible as they do not have legal ownership of this property, but just evicting them out and producing unnecessary hardship on them, is making them asylum eligible. It is OK to refuse asylum seeking refugees, it is not OK to mass produce refugees in US.

 

[Ryika]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Germany took in any Mexican refugees who were 20-year-old children looking to get away from the horrible ideologies they left behind.

Nothing to be sorry about, everybody has some knowledge gaps after all.

 

[Hygro]

the rightful inheritors

This is a fantasy. It can be your fantasy. It is not my fantasy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Nothing to be sorry about, everybody has some knowledge gaps after all.

Oh, so Germany did take in 20-year-old Mexican child refugees who were trying to escape the horrible ideology they left behind?

Wow. I should go post this in the "Today I learned" thread.

 

[Ryika]

Oh, so Germany did take in 20-year-old Mexican child refugees who were trying to escape the horrible ideology they left behind?

Wow. I should go post this in the "Today I learned" thread.

I would encourage it. It's always a good idea to note down newly earned knowledge somewhere, as otherwise you might forget you learned it and then nothing was gained in the end.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I would encourage it. It's always a good idea to note down newly earned knowledge somewhere, as otherwise you might forget you learned it and then nothing was gained in the end.

I don't mind noting down new knowledge if it's actually real knowledge and not your nonsense posts.

 

[Ryika]

I didn't post nonsense. If anyone did, then it was you, I just agreed with the things you suggested.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You equated Syrian refugees who may or may not be involved in terrorist activities with peaceful, law-abiding, and educated young Mexicans who are highly motivated to be productive and stay out of trouble.

That is clearly a nonsensical comparison. Your passive-aggressive posting style is not appreciated.

 

[Ryika]

The point of my post was that you shouldn't idealize a group of people. Assuming that they're all "peaceful, law-abiding, and educated young Mexicans" is just dumb, you'll have some who abide the law, you'll have some who are not, and you'll some who are educated and highly motivated to be productive, and you'll have some who will not.

I'm sorry that you didn't understand that.

 

[Yeekim]

The point of my post was that you shouldn't idealize a group of people. Assuming that they're all "peaceful, law-abiding, and educated young Mexicans" is just dumb, you'll have some who abide the law, you'll have some who are not, and you'll some who are educated and highly motivated to be productive, and you'll have some who will not.

While this makes sense at first glance, you're wrong in this case, because these are not assumptions but eligibility criteria subject to prior verification.

To be eligible, illegal immigrants must have entered the United States before their 16th birthday and prior to June 2007, be currently in school, a high school graduate or be honorably discharged from the military, be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012, and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor or three other misdemeanors, or otherwise pose a threat to national security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Eligibility

 

[Zkribbler]

... you're doing yourself a disfavor if you think that all children of illegals are English-speaking, well-educated, hard-working, and law-abiding just because that sounds nice.

I was speaking of dreamers, those brought here as children, who've all graduated from at least high school, who have no criminal record, and who've all been vetted by the FBI.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The point of my post was that you shouldn't idealize a group of people. Assuming that they're all "peaceful, law-abiding, and educated young Mexicans" is just dumb, you'll have some who abide the law, you'll have some who are not, and you'll some who are educated and highly motivated to be productive, and you'll have some who will not.

I'm actually not "idealizing" them. I'm saying that you can't equate them with the Syrian refugees/migrants/whatever who overran Europe. The situations aren't remotely the same.

I also don't idealize their Catholic religion. There are places in Central America where Catholic clergy have excommunicated, or threatened to excommunicate, doctors for performing therapeutic abortions on child rape victims (they were impregnated by male relatives, so that adds incest to the equation).

I'm sorry.

In the interest of peace in the thread, apology accepted.