561–570 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start running down the list of classic famous artists and you may be surprised at how many wouldn't have met those criteria at the time when they created their most important work.
Should artists be exempted from the basic requirement of being able to support themselves that we expect from people of other professions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), Having lived on the east side of Berlin (post Wall!) I cannot forget that that wall was supposedly built to keep people out but of course it kept people in . I am Australian, and I have to admit the points based system does work there...but. I have lived longest in the USA where the chaos has been beneficial for the country, and thus for me. Aus…
The Berlin Wall was really about keeping people in. Make no mistake about it. It was erected as a response to losing too many people through emigration [0]. Can you say the same about U.S. border control? Hardly. There's a very big difference between a wall that keeps unwanted people out and a wall that keeps wanted (or everyone) in by force. In the latter case, even if you have whatever freedom you wish outside the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, so I'm curious: how do you justify the cost of building and maintaining the wall? And what are we getting in return? "Fewer mexicans immigrating illegally"? For every dollar you pay in taxes, you want what % going to keeping illegal immigrants out? For me, I really couldn't care less, I'm fine with 0%. The…
It's statistically factual, at least in the USA, that illegal immigrants are more prone to crime, and that immigrant households are more likely to use welfare/EBT/etc. than native households. That is, illegals commit more crimes and are less economically productive vs. the existing population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Start running down the list of classic famous artists and you may be surprised at how many wouldn't have met those criteria at the time when they created their most important work.
Should artists be exempted from the basic requirement of being able to support themselves that we expect from people of other professions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you just have to spend so much time on useless shit that you don't deal with in other advanced economies Just curious, can you provide some examples? (outside of healthcare, which is the well-known hell). Thanks!
For an example of the top of my head, take tax returns. In the UK the vast majority of people don't need to file one—your employer deducts the right amount each month from your salary and off you go. Moving to America I found I had to spend at least half a dozen hours trying to figure out what I had to do, eventually giving up and paying for a service to do it for me and am still unsure I filed correctly. For another…
Most of the reason why Americans get so frothy about tax is because they've made it ridiculously complex to comply with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not aware of this being a variable worth considering. Can you please give me some specific examples so as to sway my opinion?
As a replacement for the odd and misplaced response I posted earlier, consider the new Cotton/Perdue immigration bill said to be backed also by Trump. The Senate backers (and Trump) have been big attackers of illegal immigration and blamed negative job impacts on that source, but the bill would halve the number of legal immigrants annually, partially by eliminating several family-based visa categories. http://www.cnn…
I've read the article (although I don't put much weight in CNN's reporting) so I went straight to the copy of the bill (http://static.politico.com/ad/1b/a981934c4278bfef730dc51b341...) and then read some commentary on it from both sides of the political spectrum.
Okay so... firstly the assertion that limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. I'm sorry but I'm still not fully convinced that this example shows your assertion to be the case. I concede however that it cannot be ruled out--so basically I'm still reserving judgement on this point and now that I'm aware of it I will definitely be keeping an eye out for any new data.
So why reserve judgement? Well you specifically said, "Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs (sic) and/or procedural obstacles to it, so that people who were legal immigrants under the old system would be prevented or discouraged from legal immigration under the new system."
The RAISE Act is an entirely separate proposed piece of legislation and therefore it does not hold as a clear example of cause and effect. You could use abduction and say that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the resulting political climate post his win has brought immigration as a whole into the spotlight, therefore there is a likelihood for a reduction immigration, including previously legal forms of immigration. While I would agree with that line of reasoning I would still reserve calling it a truth and I wouldn't adopt it into my belief structure as I generally hold out for cause and effect reasoning based on verifiable facts before accepting something as a 'truth'.
As to the RAISE Act itself, I think it actually sounds rather sensible. In essence they want to shift more towards entry through work merit as in, prioritising those with education and qualifications, similar to the points system in Canada and Australia. That means cutting back significantly on the low skill migrants and removing the diversity visa completely.
Would this hurt the number of people who go on to make a billion dollar company? I doubt it... I'm sure those people would go through the system legally and would be able to do so on merit. Would this hurt the average American? Personally I believe that it wouldn't... in fact I think it would help the 97.3 million Americans who fall into a low-income category, defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level (source: 2010 US Census).
If considering the effect the RAISE Act would have through the lens of supply and demand economics... less low skilled labour (due to a reduction of low skilled legal immigrants) would lead to more supply of low skilled job openings (which would need to be filled by the existing American workforce).
I should think that any government must consider the impact of legislation would have on low income households and the country's poverty line. In my mind there is no greater social program than a job and that Sir Thomas Browne's words ring true:
"But how shall we expect charity towards others, when we are uncharitable to ourselves? 'Charity begins at home,' is the voice of the world;".
As to the 'reduce legal family immigration', the RAISE Act retain immigration preference for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. It would eliminate preferences for the extended adult family members including:
• Adult parents of U.S. citizens
• Adult siblings of U.S. citizens
• Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens
• Married adult children of U.S. citizens, and
• Unmarried adult children of legal permanent residents.
I don't see how this is unfair. I get that immigration rights would cover your immediate family unit--especially minors--but why should it automatically cover adult children when they could apply under the same merit based system as other adults?
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
> One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. This is exactly what the study shows is not just possible but easy in screening by nationality. Think about US immigration statistics by country ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat... ): you'll see lots of Central and South American countries. Now take a…
I have nothing against you trying out illegal drugs, and nothing against imigrants, but I expect some consistency. Either you want to have a man with a whip over you or you don't, you cannot go picking and choosing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm in favor of a solid border control regime (i.e. "build the wall"), Having lived on the east side of Berlin (post Wall!) I cannot forget that that wall was supposedly built to keep people out but of course it kept people in . I am Australian, and I have to admit the points based system does work there...but. I have lived longest in the USA where the chaos has been beneficial for the country, and thus for me. Aus…
Well, I am inclined to like creative destruction and open borders too. But Australia and the US are democracies -- they are ruled by the people, most of whom seem to like a bit more orderliness. Now if the democratic process is producing something like the White Australia Policy[1] then we have cause to cry out our moral censure from the rooftops. But whatever your view on the current points system, that's just a pol…
As national policies go, there aren't many that have been so resoundingly reversed. The only thing that keeps the WAP alive is people that keep on referring to it, thinking it represents the current state of affairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not possible. Without cheap labor that kind of work would either move off shore to where labor is cheaper, or it'd be automated. My father lives in rural Alabama and is a proud red neck. But he's a transplant and a little less provincial than many native Alabamians. I visited him a few years ago and noted how many Mexicans and Central Americans had moved into the area, starting from basically none 20 years ago. Most…
Either pay a higher wage and start paying a higher price, automate it, or do without it. Arguing in favor of exploitative labor practices because you just have to have strawberries or your lawn mowed is a horrible argument. We should not be importing impoverished people and keeping them impoverished for your own personal convenience and desire.
Also, all labor is "exploitation". Does your company pass through 100% of the value you add to the organization? I seriously doubt it.
Meaningful exploitation would be, say, Alabama benefitting from Mexican immigrant labor while simultaneously discouraging or preventing their children from going to public school.
Now, sending immigrants back home might put an end to that kind of exploitation. But it's disingenuous to say that it's a favor to them to do so. It also ignores the fact one could also end the exploitation by, you know, ending the unfair treatment.
One of the basic premises of anti-immigrant policies is that you can somehow influence the ratio of "useful" vs "not-useful" immigrants. Apart from the idea of sorting people into useful and useless being inhumane, it also seems to be counterproductive. It looks like every kind of screening of immigrants will deter the more desirable ones, as far as that determination is possible on their arrival at all.
It is not about useful or not useful, it is about the holistic impact. A change to immigration policy will have a lasting impact for decades. As an exaggerated example, if you allowed no one in to the US the travel and tourism industries would be devastated, if you allowed everyone and anyone in to the US you would have reduced costs in some areas like child care, but increased costs in others like taxes to fund soci…