Presidential election, 2016

[Warren Dew]

(01-14-2017, 12:40 AM)gabrielle Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 11:50 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 11:03 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 01:37 PM)flbones too Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 06:16 AM)Danilynn Wrote: Pulling up bootstraps:

Yeah, I understand this and do it daily.

I've worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time my whole life. I still work 2 jobs.

I haven't been able and none of my Xer friends either to go out together because all of us are working like this. See we are taking care of our parents AND our kids.

SO if we seem a bit bitchy, it's because we are tired. Some of us are tired and doing all this while fighting life altering medical stuff. Some of us are just dead inside from exhaustion. I'm tired. I'm exhausted. And I know I'll drop dead working.

get out of here with that crap. no one should have to work 2-3 jobs just to make a living. no one.  wake up and stop defending a system that is rigged in favor of the rich. stop it.

Yes. I wonder when the Republican voters get with it, and start bitching at the right targets, instead of defending the folks that are causing the problems for us. It might take a little while, but I'm thinking some of them will. It will only take some of them.

Lots are already complaining about illegal immigrants, which are likely the right targets since there's such a close correlation between immigration and the fall of low end wages.  Whether the complaints are adequately directed to people who could do something with it, I don't know.

So we build the Great Wall of Trump and have taxpayers...er...Mexico pay for it, and then we will graciously be given living wages?

There won't be anything gracious about it; the elites will fight it tooth and nail.  They need the illegal immigration to keep wages and costs down and workers oppressed.

If it manages to be done - including the metaphorical wall of mandatory E-verify - yes, you'll get substantially better wages.  Wages stayed high and kept pace with productivity improvements while immigration was low, through about 1970.  Once the immigration floodgates were opened, immigrants willing to accept low wages accumulated, and wages consequently fell.  This included both legal and illegal immigration, but for the low wage positions today, it's mainly illegal immigration.  Take a look at the following graphs of first generation immigrant percent (red line in the first graph) and a measure of real wages relative to productivity (second graph).  Notice how wages track productivity gains right until around 1970, when immigrant population stops declining and starts rising, and wages immediately decouple from productivity and stay flat even while productivity continues to rise.  (The two graphs are not lined up so you'll have to look at the horizontal axis to pick out where 1970 is.)





If the wall were built and mandatory E-verify instituted, the wages at the low end of the scale would likely roughly double.

[flbones too]

1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

[SomeGuy]

I'd like to lend my support to e-verify and the wall, in roughly that order of importance.  Likewise, it looks like right now tax changes to increase the repatriation of capital from overseas is on the docket first.  I can live with flat tariffs, and if the Dems can force some direct spending on infrastructure to go with the public-private partnership stuff (maybe in trade for allowing sequester to fall by the wayside/boosting defense spending*) we might actually be in business.

* Yes, I agree that the defense budget is bloated, and that we need to get away from the Team America: World Police gig, but stiff defense cuts simply don't seem to be on the agenda.

[The Wonkette]

(01-13-2017, 02:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:04 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Gah, INFJ, ISFP, you people are almost entirely on the opposite side of every category from me.  No wonder you're so often wrong. 

No, you just have a closed mind and cannot see the value we bring to this world. All types are necessary just as the turnings need nomads, civics etc the world needs these personality types too for balance.

Nah, I'm sticking with "You're wrong!".  It's so much more succinct. 

Thank you for showing your ignorance. Nothing to be proud of.

Taramarie, I hope that you get that SomeGuy is being silly and not serious.

[SomeGuy]

(01-13-2017, 02:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:04 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Gah, INFJ, ISFP, you people are almost entirely on the opposite side of every category from me.  No wonder you're so often wrong. 

No, you just have a closed mind and cannot see the value we bring to this world. All types are necessary just as the turnings need nomads, civics etc the world needs these personality types too for balance.

Nah, I'm sticking with "You're wrong!".  It's so much more succinct. 

Thank you for showing your ignorance. Nothing to be proud of.

Taramarie, I hope that you get that SomeGuy is being silly and not serious. 

There, Ms. Wonk, fixed that for you.  And thanks for the support!

[The Wonkette]

(01-14-2017, 02:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:08 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:06 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:04 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 02:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Gah, INFJ, ISFP, you people are almost entirely on the opposite side of every category from me.  No wonder you're so often wrong. 

No, you just have a closed mind and cannot see the value we bring to this world. All types are necessary just as the turnings need nomads, civics etc the world needs these personality types too for balance.

Nah, I'm sticking with "You're wrong!".  It's so much more succinct. 

Thank you for showing your ignorance. Nothing to be proud of.

Taramarie, I hope that you get that SomeGuy is being silly and not serious. 

There, Ms. Wonk, fixed that for you.  And thanks for the support!

Just fixed the original.

[SomeGuy]

You hear that, you dirty trolls!  We are NOT amused! 

[Odin]

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

[SomeGuy]

(01-14-2017, 10:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

Oh, think of the children!

I don't personally mind making provisions for the categories of illegal aliens you mentioned, provided that steps like e-verify and border security (The Great Wall of Trump!) make it a one-time thing and not a repeat of Reagan's amnesty law.

I also can't help but note that there is a shifty pattern of discourse where the permissible means of reference to these countries changes depending on the circumstances.  There's a lot of push back on "how dare you refer to <country x> as a barbarous Third World country" until you talk about sending people back to those places, in which case we are assured they are in fact crumbling, crime-ridden wastelands to which repatriation should count as a war crime. 

[Odin]

(01-14-2017, 11:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

Oh, think of the children!

I don't personally mind making provisions for the categories of illegal aliens you mentioned, provided that steps like e-verify and border security (The Great Wall of Trump!) make it a one-time thing and not a repeat of Reagan's amnesty law.

I also can't help but note that there is a shifty pattern of discourse where the permissible means of reference to these countries depending on the circumstances.  There's a lot of push back on "how dare you refer to <country x> as a barbarous Third World country" until you talk about sending people back to those places, in which case we are assured they are in fact crumbling, crime-ridden wastelands to which repatriation should count as a war crime. 

Fair enough, the point I was trying to make is simply "deporting them all" is going to end up screwing over US citizens and in a lot of cases is simply morally unconscionable. The callousness also helps fuel the paranoia among Mexican-Americans that the rhetoric against "illegals" is really just a dog-whistle for people who think that Latinos are not "real" Americans and so makes the Left even less likely to compromise on immigration.

[SomeGuy]

I am pleased to see that you agree that Trump's stated initial focus on actual criminal illegal aliens is in fact a sensible, moderate step, not at all out of keeping with Bill Clinton's rhetoric back in the 90s, or indeed the NYT editorial board as late as 2000. 

It's also worth pointing out that Trump received a non-negligible share of the Hispanic vote (which admittedly includes more than just Mexicans), and that existing working-class immigrants may in fact have as much or more to gain from kicking away the ladder behind them (as it were) as do native-born Americans.

[Warren Dew]

(01-14-2017, 10:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

Are Mexican slums really all that much worse than American slums?  Not that they would be all that likely to go back to a Mexican slum; typically, experience living in American and whatever English is learned here is worth a significant amount with respect to employment opportunities in the home country.

And the American children aren't being deported; they can always be placed with relatives here, or with someone else that will take care of them, if you really think location of birth determines morality with respect to their treatment.

As for people who were brought over as small children and see themselves as Americans, would that that were a typical case.  Even legal hispanic residents born here often have the attitude, "you celebrate Fourth of July, we celebrate Cinqo de Mayo, what's the difference?"  That's not seeing themselves as (U.S.) Americans.  And with multilingual schooling rapidly becoming the norm, they aren't even learning English in school any more; assimilation is getting further and further from the norm.

Forced mass deportation may not be the answer, but the status quo isn't either.

[Marypoza]

(01-15-2017, 12:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

Are Mexican slums really all that much worse than American slums?  Not that they would be all that likely to go back to a Mexican slum; typically, experience living in American and whatever English is learned here is worth a significant amount with respect to employment opportunities in the home country.

-- l have & yes they are. Not just Mexican slums, but slums in several Central American countries. Trust me, our slums stack up real good in comparison.

fwiw, l celebrate both Cinco de Mayo & the 4th. l'm gringa, btw. I celebrate St Paddy's Day too. Big time. Does that mean l'm not assimilating?

[Warren Dew]

(01-15-2017, 01:39 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 12:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

Are Mexican slums really all that much worse than American slums?  Not that they would be all that likely to go back to a Mexican slum; typically, experience living in American and whatever English is learned here is worth a significant amount with respect to employment opportunities in the home country.

-- l have & yes they are. Not just Mexican slums, but slums in several Central American countries. Trust me, our slums stack up real good in comparison.

fwiw, l celebrate both Cinco de Mayo & the 4th. l'm gringa, btw. I celebrate St Paddy's Day too. Big time. Does that mean l'm not assimilating?

Depends.  If you celebrate Cinco de Mayo and July 4th in the same way and think they're equally important, I'd say you're deassimilating, or maybe multiculturating.

[Marypoza]

(01-15-2017, 01:56 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 01:39 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(01-15-2017, 12:23 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:56 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-14-2017, 10:12 AM)flbones too Wrote: 1 million immigrants coming annually is too many. We already have 300+ million people. We need to grow from natural increase now, not immigration. A max of 100,000 immigrants a year is enough. All illegal aliens should be deported, they're violating the law.

So lets be clear, here, you want American children to live in Mexican slums just because of the immigration status of their parents? What about people who were brought over as small children, have no memory of their home country, and see themselves as Americans? Do you want to send those back to a country they do not consider their own? Because that is what will happen by "deporting all illegal immigrants".

It's fine if you are concerned about illegal immigration, but mass deportations of people already here are not the answer.

Are Mexican slums really all that much worse than American slums?  Not that they would be all that likely to go back to a Mexican slum; typically, experience living in American and whatever English is learned here is worth a significant amount with respect to employment opportunities in the home country.

-- l have & yes they are. Not just Mexican slums, but slums in several Central American countries. Trust me, our slums stack up real good in comparison.

fwiw, l celebrate both Cinco de Mayo & the 4th. l'm gringa, btw. I celebrate St Paddy's Day too. Big time. Does that mean l'm not assimilating?

Depends.  If you celebrate Cinco de Mayo and July 4th in the same way and think they're equally important, I'd say you're deassimilating, or maybe multiculturating.

-- no Cinco de Mayo is more of a food day, go down to the Square eat Mexican (ok TexMex) food & listen to maharichi bands.  On the 4th I hit the parade -some times l'm in it if my friend is running for office- then hit the pool, go see whatever band is playing @ the old airfield (l've seen Cheap Trick, Huey Lewis,  Kenny Loggins,  Journey,  Foreigner, to name a few all for free) & then they have fireworks after the concert. And yes l know the 4th is the more important holiday.  St Paddy's Day is the big one however. l hit the bars, hit the parades, l get drunk as a skunk......

[Odin]

When people complain about Mexican-Americans "not assimilating" they are talking about the folks in parts of south Texas, SoCal, and the desert SW that had Hispanic populations even before the current wave of immigration and has shared cultural ties with northern Mexico (this is the region Colin Woodard calls "El Norte"). In my personal experience the Mexican-Americans who move out of that region do assimilate normally.

[David Horn]

(01-14-2017, 05:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And enough of all of that.

E-Verify, a useful policy, or one more step on the road to the American Reich?

I'm going with "useful tool", but it may prove a very different tool than the proponents expect.  If e-verify stands between our fresh food and immigration policy, I'm betting on food.

[David Horn]

(01-14-2017, 11:05 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: ... I also can't help but note that there is a shifty pattern of discourse where the permissible means of reference to these countries changes depending on the circumstances.  There's a lot of push back on "how dare you refer to <country x> as a barbarous Third World country" until you talk about sending people back to those places, in which case we are assured they are in fact crumbling, crime-ridden wastelands to which repatriation should count as a war crime. 

Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are all crime-infested swamps because we exported a bunch of gang members there the last time we cracked down.

Quote:What is causing the violence?

The nature of the violence is distinct in each country, but there are common threads: the proliferation of gangs, the region’s use as a transshipment point for U.S.-bound narcotics, and high rates of impunity are major factors contributing to insecurity in the region.

[David Horn]

(01-15-2017, 10:26 AM)Odin Wrote: When people complain about Mexican-Americans "not assimilating" they are talking about the folks in parts of south Texas, SoCal, and the desert SW that had Hispanic populations even before the current wave of immigration and has shared cultural ties with northern Mexico (this is the region Colin Woodard calls "El Norte"). In my personal experience the Mexican-Americans who move out of that region do assimilate normally.

Let's also agree that maintaining cultural heritage practices is not the same as "not assimilating".  The whole point of Garrison Keeler's A Prairie Home Companion is the cultural links still in existence by the, in this case, Norwegian settlers who populated the Minnesota prairie in 19th and early 20th century.  Can we agree that today's Minnesotans of Norwegian heritage are fully assimilated?

[Warren Dew]

(01-15-2017, 10:26 AM)Odin Wrote: When people complain about Mexican-Americans "not assimilating" they are talking about the folks in parts of south Texas, SoCal, and the desert SW that had Hispanic populations even before the current wave of immigration and has shared cultural ties with northern Mexico (this is the region Colin Woodard calls "El Norte").

Speak for yourself, please.  There are problems with assimilation much further north than that.