Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629671)

Clearly Sanders. He's not a socialist in any strong sense either, although I am. Electing a Republican would be disaster - it probably means four reactionary SCOTUS appointments and a war with Iran, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I actually think Trump would be a better President than most of his primary opponents, just because he'd be too incompetent to actually get the stuff he wants.

I think Trump's controversial statements are a distraction - it doesn't make sense to care more that he said something nasty about Megyn Kelly than you care that he wants to take necessary anti-poverty programs away from the people who need them, or that he wants to deport millions and millions of people, or whatever. Not sure what it matters that he "has an opinion" on immigration if that opinion is terrible, but I'd love to hear your actual argument in favor of his position instead of just a bunch of no-content statements which it's impossible to respond to.

ETA: Also, those controversial statements are a totally calculated move on his part - he knows people like you will be like "Oh he's standing up to the Democrats," and then when people get mad he gets to complain about political correctness, which just helps him with the base more. He knows what he needs to do to win a primary - although he's not going to.

Originally Posted by Two Spirit (Post 1629680)

It's so obvious that crossing the borders without the correct papers and documentation is wrong

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629706)

Why?

Originally Posted by Two Spirit (Post 1629708)

Because it's illegal.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629710)

Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make them all wrong. If "Americans" deserve access to certain services, don't all people deserve access to those services?

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1629712)

i thought trump's megyn kelly diss was entirely appropriate

i mean people act like he went out and attacked her out of nowhere... she clearly started it

these bleached blonde ratchet looking fox news hoes need to learn that daddy trump keeps his pimp hand strong

Originally Posted by Two Spirit (Post 1629711)

Of course something being illegal doesn't automatically make it morally wrong, but in the case of immigration, it's still something that nations have the right to enforce. We can't disregard all laws because some people feel it shouldn't be illegal. It has to be looked at in a case by case basis.

Originally Posted by Two Spirit (Post 1629713)

I agree that she started with the accusations of "misogyny," but Trump has pushed this feud way farther than he's needed to at this point.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629671)

those controversial statements are a totally calculated move on his part - he knows people like you will be like "Oh he's standing up to the Democrats," and then when people get mad he gets to complain about political correctness, which just helps him with the base more. He knows what he needs to do to win a primary - although he's not going to.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629717)

Regardless, I would argue that all people are entitled to certain things, such as healthcare, a job, and a basic income. At the point where you're ready to deny people things they can barely live without just because they were not born in America, I don't really have anything to say to you.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629717)

Okay? When your entire justification for something being wrong is that it's illegal, it's totally justified for me to say that that doesn't make it wrong.

Okay, sure. That's why having a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants is a good thing - because as more people come in, they will end up paying taxes to fund the programs we're talking about. But it doesn't even matter, because undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for these public services thanks to the 1996 welfare reform law - they can use a couple things, but not Medicare, Medicaid (except in emergencies), SSI, CHIP, TANF... almost anything you think of as a welfare/public assistance program the government provides is something that undocumented immigrants cannot access. In fact, even "legal" immigrants have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops before they can access these programs as well.

Regardless, I would argue that all people are entitled to certain things, such as healthcare, a job, and a basic income. At the point where you're ready to deny people things they can barely live without just because they were not born in America, I don't really have anything to say to you.

Originally Posted by Two Spirit (Post 1629728)

All of this comes down to one question. Why couldn't they have come here legally in the first place? They willingly broke the law by coming here illegally, and people that have a problem with that are labeled the bad guys because they don't want to reward illegal behavior.

I do think we should make the immigration process a hell of a lot easier to perform legally, but supporting amnesty measures just doesn't seem right, because it's essentially saying, "You came here illegally, but oh well, since you're already here, we'll give you an SS number, driver's license, etc, because if we don't, we'll look like *******s." Imagine if a store clerk held the same attitude towards a burglar that came onto his property.

It's a tough position to be in, wanting to enforce the law while not looking like an ******* doing it.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1629731)

You do realize that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers 113 billion largely as a result of paid social services?

The cost for California alone is 25 billion, placing undue & unsustainable strain on the welfare state that was already teetering near bankruptcy. You do realize this?

You do realize that illegal immigration & mass immigration puts a downward pressure on the wages of unskilled labour? (Reducing the wage of native labours 99 to 118 billion per year)

You do realize that once an ethnic voting bloc that continually cites immigration as major issue on how they choose to vote, can determine the outcome of an election, than it becomes extremely hard to control your border policy.

You do realize all of this?

Did you grow up in a comfortable middle class household? Just curious?

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

As you say, it's super hard to come here legally and lots of people don't have a better option. I don't know why crossing the border to look for a better life is something we should be trying to punish.


I'll respond to this with actual evidence and not just logic in the morning because I'm super tired right now. I've definitely seen studies that dispute the thing about downward pressure on wages though - I'm pretty sure it basically evens out in the long run - and I'd really appreciate it if you could both cite your sources and explain exactly which social services we're paying $113 billion for, given that undocumented immigrants aren't eligible for most of them.

I'd also dispute that that's necessarily a bad thing - the government should use social services as a way to help people. You say they're costing taxpayers money, but that isn't really true at the point where no politician is saying, "Well, immigrants need social services, so we're raising taxes." These things aren't really "costing taxpayers money" because the amount any given person pays is the same. Like, yeah, when they're contributing to California's budget problems that is an actual harm, but it's not like there aren't other factors there, and the solution being "Let's design policy that targets some of the worst off people in our society" just doesn't make much sense to me.

As far as this downward pressure on wages goes, a lot of it could be solved just by making it harder for employers to exploit undocumented immigrants - in other words, with more liberal immigration policy that doesn't make it so hard to live as an undocumented immigrant, the stuff you're complaining about will not happen or will at least happen to a much lesser extent. As it is, it's really easy for businesspeople to employ undocumented immigrants and threaten to report them to the authorities if they complain about, among other things, their wages being stolen (there are a bunch of other reasons for the wage stuff you're talking about that can also be solved or mitigated with less stringent policy, but that's the most obvious one). I also think that it is good for people to be employed, no matter the country in which they were born, so if there are immigrants making more money, that at least provides a counterweight to there being American citizens making less.

I'm also really confused by the bolded bit. Yes - in a democracy, when a large bloc of voters want a policy adopted, it is politically useful for a party to try to adopt that policy. So?

My family is probably upper-middle class, keeping in mind that like 90% of Americans describe themselves as middle class. So there's a pretty good basis for whatever ad hominem you're try to set up.

("You do realize..." is pretty unnecessary. You can be a condescending dick without being a condescending dick about it.)

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1629741)

It's common knowledge that illegal immigration costs American tax payer billions every year, there's tons of links.

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

Originally Posted by Southern Poverty Law Center

The founder, chief ideologue and long-time funder of FAIR is a racist. Key staff members have ties to white supremacist groups, some are members, and some have spoken at hate group functions. FAIR has accepted more than $1 million from a racist foundation devoted to studies of race and IQ, and to eugenics — the pseudo-science of breeding a better human race that was utterly discredited by the Nazi euthanasia program. It spreads racist conspiracy theories[...]

FAIR is the hub of the American nativist movement, the group that more than any other has contributed to the rancid turn the national immigration discussion has taken. With FAIR fanning the flames of xenophobic intolerance, hate groups, hate crimes and hate speech directed at foreigners and Latinos continue to rise in America.

Originally Posted by EPI

In the ongoing debate on immigration, there is broad agreement among academic economists that it has a small but positive impact on the wages of native-born workers overall: although new immigrant workers add to the labor supply, they also consume goods and services, which creates more jobs[...]

The estimated effect of immigration from 1994 to 2007 was to raise the wages of U.S.-born workers, relative to foreign-born workers, by 0.4% (or $3.68 per week)[...]

For workers with less than a high school education, the relative wage effect of immigration was similar to the overall effect. U.S.-born workers with less than a high school education saw a relative 0.3% increase in wages (or $1.58 per week)[...]

Female U.S.-born workers with less than a high school education experienced a relative increase in wages of 1.1% due to immigration.

Originally Posted by Vanilla (Post 1629755)

Why do people think that because you're white and middle class you're not allowed to have opinions about things that may not affect you? Or opinions about racism and minorities? There is such a thing as having a factual, well researched argument not dependent on your background.

Originally Posted by Vanilla (Post 1629755)

Why do people think that because you're white and middle class you're not allowed to have opinions about things that may not affect you? Or opinions about racism and minorities? There is such a thing as having a factual, well researched argument not dependent on your background.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1629960)

Well I went at it with Roxy over this and basically I got told "You're not black so your opinions don't count", or some variant of that. I let it go in the end because our friendship was starting to come under threat, but it still doesn't seem right to me.

This was, in fairness, in response to my thread about that woman getting arrested and then "hanging herself" in prison a little while back, and I understand feelings may have been a bit raw, but still, I don't see any reason why I, you or any other white or non-black person should not be allowed to express our outrage over the crimes and injustices perpetrated against those who are not our own race... not that I will stop doing that of course.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629998)

I don't know, I think there are definitely situations in which I as a well-off white guy have to take a step back and refrain from discussing certain issues. I don't really think this is one of those situations, but in general I'm pretty sympathetic to arguments like that - and I don't know that it's up to me, when discussing more fraught situations like the policy brutality thing you mention, to decide when I have to bow out of a discussion because I'm offending someone or because I'm coopting a narrative that should belong to poor people/people of color/women/whatever. Basically: if my support for equality or for marginalized groups of people is ever making people who belong to those groups leave a discussion because I'm talking about them in a way that's dehumanizing or offensive, I'm not really supporting equality or those people.

But yeah, I sort of don't think that applies here - whether the studies I cite and the arguments I make are accurate doesn't really depend on my class. But if I'm talking about the experiences of others, I absolutely want to know if the way I'm talking about those experiences is a problem.

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1630019)

Well not to derail things, but that's the point. Everything I said about that particular situation was supportive and expressed outrage for what happened. I don't think I ever said anything that might be seen to have caused offence. I was just basically told to shut up and people were not to make these threads any more. Obviously if I were making a joke about it or putting anyone down, then yeah, sure, slap me down. But if I'm supporting your cause then why does it matter that I'm not the same colour? Like, if I started a thread about how Chinese people are treated and then a Chinese member came on saying "You can't say that, you're not Chinese!" How does that make sense?

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629745)

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

But it doesn't matter because you're not responding to the substance of my argument - even if this costs the government money, you don't show me any evidence that that's causing tax increases and you don't give me any reason why this is the place we need to be making cuts. (ETA: And you never give a reason why it's not okay to have increased spending if we're giving social services to people who need them.)

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make them all wrong. If "Americans" deserve access to certain services, don't all people deserve access to those services?

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

You also refuse to provide any evidence that shows wages decreasing - I assume you got that initial number from FAIR as well, so my earlier objections apply there - so here's some evidence which says that, if anything, the opposite happens.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629735)

"Don't take this personally but you're a twat." Thanks man.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1629741)

Don't take this personally, I asked if you were middle class because whenever I encounter someone on the net giving someone else lectures on immigration or diversity, its always some politically correct middle class twat who grew up in a comfortable home environment. I often find that they are people who never got over being bullied in high school, and therefore often bear grudge against their own culture by championing every socialist agenda on the planet no matter who it adversely impacts. If they had to grind through life they would have a completely different outlook.

Bit of a rant there, but it really, really gets my goat.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1630231)

your all about political ideology no matter who it hurts. Middle class liberals have completely hijacked working class parties in the west with their own agenda

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1630298)

He's still in high school.

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1630231)

I don't know anything about FAIR other than that they have been called to testify in front of the United States Congress on immigration bills & are cited in many mainstream news sources. However, if its being cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center, its probably complete bull$hit.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center is a highly political far left organization that has written for Communist newspapers in the United States. They have faced lawsuits for delibertly expanding their hate list group to include anyone who opposes immigration." I imagine Trump is next.

I am the furthest thing from an evangelical Christian, but these guys do a good job on the SPLC.

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1630364)

I mean it doesn't really matter that they're cited in the mainstream press if they take money from neo-Nazis, and maybe it's no coincidence that the groups who are virulently opposed to immigration tend to be racist hate groups. But since I'm giving you independent reasons why the evidence you get from FAIR is wrong, it doesn't really matter whether either they or the SPLC are a good source.

So... still no response. Cool.

I question some of these too - Townhall and the Daily Caller are very ideological publications, about.com isn't really very serious, The Odyssey says it's crowdsourced journalism (so this is just a random person talking) and that article only cites the same FAIR report anyway, and as for that WaPo piece, this is the first paragraph:

So this isn't just "I have evidence and you evidence," because your evidence has serious methodological problems.

Anyway, the solution, once again, is further liberalization. Look to this report, which says that if we had a better path to citizenship, our economy would benefit in a huge number of ways - debt would decrease, additional spending would create jobs, wages go up, a bunch more. The links to some actual studies are in there as well.

That first study I linked says that other studies which conclude the other way don't take a holistic enough view of the economy. I can check to see whether it mentions your study by name, but again, your methodology is flawed regardless. I don't mean to discount your personal experiences, but if we're trying to figure out whether there's a net decrease in wages, the fact that you've seen people lose jobs is a little less important.

Okay, good for you. You sound like a cool person, and I mean that sincerely. I don't really understand "animosity to my own culture"? Maybe I just have beliefs that are different from yours.

So, in sum, you give two reasons why immigration is bad. First is increased government spending. I tell you that even if this is true:

1. We ought to be spending money on social services anyway
2. This isn't causing tax increases
3. This isn't the place where we should be making cuts

Second is depressed wages. I tell you that even if this is true:

1. This is a short term problem
2. A lot more people are getting jobs, which is good

I also tell you that it's not true and that the economic consensus, when looking at all sectors of the economy, is that native workers - even uneducated native workers - benefit.

But finally, you completely ignore the argument I keep making that further liberalization solves both of these problems by allowing undocumented immigrants to fully participate in the economy, increasing spending and creating jobs, and by keeping employers from threatening undocumented immigrants and getting away with wage theft. The solution isn't "Build a wall," it's "Treat people better when they're here."

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1630630)

I'm not going to do a whole line-by-line like I've been doing, or, for that matter, take part in this argument after this - which seems to be your intention as well, so I think we're all good. It seems pretty clear that we're going to keep going around in circles about whose sources are more valid and whose studies are more methodologically sound. I also think we're not really having a productive debate if we're getting bogged down talking about source bias and whatever - these issues are largely background noise and there's no real argument going on related to the stuff I mention at the bottom of my last post (starting with "in sum"), nor does there need to be. You have better things to do and I have better things to do, so I'm really fine with ending this here.

Originally Posted by DeadChannel (Post 1631929)

If I was 'murican, I'd be voting for Deez Nuts (you guys are so ****ed up).

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1630647)

Oh yeah, I mean I think we have to understand that open borders are something that have to come with comprehensive immigration reform, as nebulous a term as that is. Just saying "Open borders" isn't a policy and I don't think it should be the United States's. We absolutely need regulation in place to keep people from being paid such low wages (among other things), but in my mind the solution is to have that regulation, not to try to keep immigrants out altogether.

In general though, you're right that we do need to recognize the extent to which "free movement of labor" can become a capitalist tool. That said, I strongly believe that with more effective regulation we can keep that basic freedom from being exploited by the rich.

(Bernie Sanders and Paul Krugman don't speak for all of us left-of-center Jews though. :p:)

Originally Posted by Josef K (Post 1629710)

Lots of things are illegal but that doesn't make them all wrong. If "Americans" deserve access to certain services, don't all people deserve access to those services?

Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody (Post 1629741)

whenever I encounter someone on the net giving someone else lectures on immigration or diversity, its always some politically correct middle class twat who grew up in a comfortable home environment. I often find that they are people who never got over being bullied in high school, and therefore often bear grudge against their own culture by championing every socialist agenda on the planet no matter who it adversely impacts.