451–460 of 701 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because most of the anger at Trump and his admin has been around their plan for deportation of criminal illegal aliens
And yet people all across the country protested at airports a few weeks ago...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two example policies (chosen because they were the first two in a Google search, and show contrasting approaches to the general issue, not, e.g., because of any special relevance of the two institutions): http://registrar.calpoly.edu/content/stu_info/credit_byexam http://admissions.utah.edu/apply/special-credit/challenge-a-...
Hi dragonwriter... I've visited both links and neither of them seem to be related to immigration and how limits to illegal immigration impacts pathways for legal immigration. Also I did a duckduckgo search (I don't use Google due to their TOS and my perception of their ethics) and could find nothing on the first page of results to support what you were saying which is why I asked. Please advise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More importantly, how can you not think that? Logically a Canadian is going to be culturally a better fit, financially better off, and more educated and skilled. It's got nothing to do with race or nationality, just a statement about the average Mexican vs the average Canadian. Don't throw logic out the window in service to liberal ideals.
Why would a Canadian be a better fit for southern california or texas? Is their experience moose hunting going to help in 100 degree heat? Why would we even want someone who's "culturally" a better fit? I'd love it if the people around me were more diverse, it makes life richer and more interesting.
It seems like he fit in just fine, thanks to his command of English (his service business would have gotten nowhere if he didn't speak English), and an invention called "air conditioning" let him deal with the 100 degree heat, just like every other person in that metro area.
Honestly, your comment about moose hunting is downright offensive.
Whenever I see "Immigration" in the title, i think anti-Trump and get sad. No one is trying to stop legal immigration. Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.
> No one is trying to stop legal immigration.
> Tech companies are mad because they are cracking down on H1-B Visa abuse. This is not a bad thing.
Trump allies in Congress are literally introducing a bill to cut legal immigration in half.
Whenever I see comments like this I get sad. The idea that the administration is only trying to stop "illegal immigration is just plain wrong. It's clear Steve Bannon sees successful immigrants, especially non white non Christian ones, as a danger. And as for Stephen Miller he literally broke up with a close friend because he was Latino.
Tech companies aren't just worried about profits, many are headed by immigrants and they're worried about an extremely xenophobic white house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that effect is only negative from the specific perspective of low end salary holders. that effect is positive for businesses and consumers.
The attitude you just displayed is basically why Trump won the election. Let me translate your statements to an economic reality: "Screw the entire middle of the country and anyone who doesn't live in cities. Except those guys in Chicago, I guess they're alright." Low wage earners are a huge chunk of the legal US population. After the government the next largest employer in the country is Walmart. Most of those peopl…
I apologize that my logic in support of open borders and extending the american jobs economy to immigrants has been construed as a Trump-esque attitude of "screw the [...] middle of the country"
For what it's worth, I am not on either side of an aisle, and am so disconnected from media that I have no idea how my perspective is in any way correlated to Trump's antithetical closed-borders policy. Please forgive my ignorance of that narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First they came for the "Illegals"... Rhetoric aside, as you pointed out, this is only the beginning. Authoritarians always need a scrapegoat to blame for "failed policies". Once one group is eliminated, on to another.
> Authoritarians Why do you think they are authoritarians. I don't get this. The right in the US is about freedom. The left is the part of authoritarianism. The progressive left especially has incredibly tight control of freedom of speech. Everything they don't like is called hate speech, all discussions are shut down, and PC terminology means that it doesn't matter what you say anymore, if you accidentally choose th…
IMO authoritarianism is totally orthogonal to right/left. It's clearly the case that members of both espouse changes that would limit our freedoms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get your facts outta here. Can't you see people are trying to force a perceived threat based on their feelings here?
This is the comment that takes the middle ground and explains to both of you that nothing is black and white and there are bad and good things about Trump's immigration agenda. His plans could actually be philanthropically motivated, but they are undeniably being prematurely spun into action without reasonable consultation from an array of experts and this is the source of most of its flaws. These flaws may or may no…
We're dealing with an extremely xenophobic white house and need to unite against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. So wouldn't it be better then to simply put a cap on the number of immigrants per month and not screen them for characteristics beyond criminality? We could cut bureaucracy and improve economic efficiency at the same time! I'm a small-government guy.
Sure, but let's say there are 10X the number of applicants compared to the cap. How do you choose which ones? If you put on any cap, you are picking and choosing. Personally, I'd sort by salary/expected taxes.
I've worked with many large "successful" companies over the years. At every one of them I've found bureaucratic procedures which are worse than random. They're the kind of convoluted process which started out as a good idea and then morphed over the years into a tradition for its own sake -- "that's the way it's done!" -- and gathered false post-hoc rationalizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In my opinion, even if it may harm some natives, due to the poverty alleviating effects of immigration, we should open immigration to anyone who doesn't have a criminal record. What is the point of government if not to act in the best interests of its citizens? Why are our governments now apparently obligated to act in the best interests of foreign nationals? This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty or humani…
> What is the point of government if not to act in the best interests of its citizens? Why are our governments now apparently obligated to act in the best interests of foreign nationals? This has nothing to do with alleviating poverty or humanitarian ideals. It's blatantly obvious that this advocacy for open borders is part of a power grab by the left to ensure that they stay in power for decades to come, at the expe…
Economics is not the only factor to factor into someone's interests. Everyone has things they value more than money.
>Also, I think the extreme poverty in parts of the world can justify help, just like how 1000$ is more to a poor person than a millionaire.
How does that justify help? It's not just like you help them to get on their feet and you're done. They and their descendants will live in your society for generations. Nobody is obligated to give them this at the expense of their citizens.
>No, immigration alleviates poverty as Americans are much richer than the average person. Why do you think so many people want to immigrate?
They want to immigrate here because wages are higher. However, there are only a limited number of jobs, and so flooding the job market with more people prevents natives from being able to find work, which is against their interests.
>I don't think it's a power grab by the left (open borders are not popular, as you can see right here) and that's irrelevant to the merits of open borders.
It's exactly like Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, where he tried to pack the supreme court with justices favorable to his political faction, except this time they are trying to pack the US electorate. These people and their descendants overwhelmingly vote left.
>Well, I am against forcing racial diversity, so you can stay with your ethnic group/society in my proposal.
That's illegal in the United States. Every ethnic group has to live among every other ethnic group. Nobody can create societies that only allow people of their ethnic group to live among them, so it's not true that anyone can stay with their ethnic group, barring some serious constitutional reforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From what I've read of the report, the 51% were all 100% legal immigrants. Anti-immigrant policies, including ones sold on rhetoric about illegal immigration, often include changes to reduce levels of legal immigration or erect new cosrs 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.
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?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/cotton-perdue-immigra...