United States The United States and Immigration Policy

[Arch Dornan]

CBP is like 50% Latino/Hispanic.

Ok that corresponds with what I heard.

Strange why the haters go with accusations of racism despite how lots of people who immigrated from down south worked in border control. They don't understand the purpose of border security do they?

Used to remember that one fact checker who got fired for failing to fact check a veteran who worked in ICE by calling him a Nazi due to his tatoo IIRC.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Ok that corresponds with what I heard.

Strange why the haters go with accusations of racism despite how lots of people who immigrated from down south worked in border control. They don't understand the purpose of border security do they?

Used to remember that one fact checker who got fired for failing to fact check a veteran who worked in ICE by calling him a Nazi due to his tatoo IIRC.

Thing is, people just go watch their preferred newschannels and think Hollywood’s “satire” and “relevant for these times” material are completely accurate regarding the situation while failing yo realise that its much more complex than first thought

 

[Arch Dornan]

Thing is, people just go watch their preferred newschannels and think Hollywood’s “satire” and “relevant for these times” material are completely accurate regarding the situation while failing yo realise that its much more complex than first thought

Their loss then. It's such lack of awareness that can fuck them without them knowing they've been played like a damn fiddle.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Their loss then. It's such lack of awareness that can fuck them without them knowing they've been played like a damn fiddle.

Its a willing lack of awareness, people don’t like seeing or having to argue with things that contradict their beliefs even when they can barely back them up

 

[Arch Dornan]

Its a willing lack of awareness, people don’t like seeing or having to argue with things that contradict their beliefs even when they can barely back them up

That's even worse when reality hits them face up with no mercy.

Though I suppose they'll say the same thing back thinking they'll win.

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

I'm aware that there's extreme risk

AFAIK there has been TWO Nuclear Reactor related disasters. Chernobyl has already been covered and the only other one was "built it on a fault line and the safety measures were inadequate for an actual earthquake."

On top of that there has been good success with small scale Thorium Liquid Salt reactors and the safety measures for those are A. Simple, B. the next best thing to foolproof. On top of resulting in less radioactive waste, being cheaper, AND not being able to even theoretically make nuclear weapon grade fissionables.

Also these wouldn't be government run projects, so I suspect the infrastructure will be less of an issue.

 

[Aaron Fox]

AFAIK there has been TWO Nuclear Reactor related disasters. Chernobyl has already been covered and the only other one was "built it on a fault line and the safety measures were inadequate for an actual earthquake."

On top of that there has been good success with small scale Thorium Liquid Salt reactors and the safety measures for those are A. Simple, B. the next best thing to foolproof. On top of resulting in less radioactive waste, being cheaper, AND not being able to even theoretically make nuclear weapon grade fissionables.

Also these wouldn't be government run projects, so I suspect the infrastructure will be less of an issue.

Actually, the latter isn't that. It was designed for what the local fault line was, but since space is a premium the emergency generators were put on ground level. The earthquake and the tsunami that it resulted was far beyond the tolerances of its construction. Even then, the systems that were in place only resulted in a leak of radioactive steam. Western reactors are deliberately overbuilt.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Ok that corresponds with what I heard.

Strange why the haters go with accusations of racism despite how lots of people who immigrated from down south worked in border control. They don't understand the purpose of border security do they?

Used to remember that one fact checker who got fired for failing to fact check a veteran who worked in ICE by calling him a Nazi due to his tatoo IIRC.

In fairness, uniformed government services tend to have really strict tattoo policies to prevent gang infiltration.

 

[OliverCromwell]

The notion that the United States needs to restrict immigration to prevent harm to the fundamental national character of America is laughably antiquated. Literally antiquated--it's empty wind and fury over a fight that was already lost centuries ago. What will immigration restrictions due to undo the mutation of American culture that has already come to pass thanks to the swarms of Irish and Italians and Poles and Russians and so forth who have already found their unrestricted way into America? What will they do to remove the influence of welfareism and foreign culture and catholicism that those waves have already brought about? What will they do to recover the genuine American culture that was the product of the Puritans' sacred endeavor which was already lost so many decades ago?

The battle for the maintenance of true American culture was lost a long, long time ago. Hell, I would argue that in some sense it was lost at the moment of the United States' inception, when we chose to include the South--a land with broadly alien culture, character of faith, and conception of politics--into our polity. Standing in the ashes of a beauty already long destroyed, wild gesticulations about the danger of further fires are an absurdity--you cannot burn the ashes. You cannot bring back what already no longer exists. You stand here complaining about the fires when you yourselves were the match.

Complaints about people coming from poor foreign countries are particularly amusing given that I'm willing to bet that the blood that runs through the veins of many of the people posting here--Irish, South Italians, Russians, and so forth--represents territories that were little better. People from Latin America can blame centuries of extractive Spanish colonial policy followed by centuries of American and European imperialism for the poverty of their nations--what is the excuse of the Neapolitan, the Russian, even the Irishman who before England's conquest of Ireland had many centuries as an independent and backwards set of states? What is the excuse of your ancestors?

All evidence immigrants that immigrants are a significant economic benefit to America which will in the long term enrich the lives of all people here. What sense is there in keeping them out? Insofar as they can destroy the culture of anything, they will destroy only that which is already rubble.

 

[Arch Dornan]

The notion that the United States needs to restrict immigration to prevent harm to the fundamental national character of America is laughably antiquated. Literally antiquated--it's empty wind and fury over a fight that was already lost centuries ago. What will immigration restrictions due to undo the mutation of American culture that has already come to pass thanks to the swarms of Irish and Italians and Poles and Russians and so forth who have already found their unrestricted way into America? What will they do to remove the influence of welfareism and foreign culture and catholicism that those waves have already brought about? What will they do to recover the genuine American culture that was the product of the Puritans' sacred endeavor which was already lost so many decades ago?

The battle for the maintenance of true American culture was lost a long, long time ago. Hell, I would argue that in some sense it was lost at the moment of the United States' inception, when we chose to include the South--a land with broadly alien culture, character of faith, and conception of politics--into our polity. Standing in the ashes of a beauty already long destroyed, wild gesticulations about the danger of further fires are an absurdity--you cannot burn the ashes. You cannot bring back what already no longer exists. You stand here complaining about the fires when you yourselves were the match.

Complaints about people coming from poor foreign countries are particularly amusing given that I'm willing to bet that the blood that runs through the veins of many of the people posting here--Irish, South Italians, Russians, and so forth--represents territories that were little better. People from Latin America can blame centuries of extractive Spanish colonial policy followed by centuries of American and European imperialism for the poverty of their nations--what is the excuse of the Neapolitan, the Russian, even the Irishman who before England's conquest of Ireland had many centuries as an independent and backwards set of states? What is the excuse of your ancestors?

All evidence immigrants that immigrants are a significant economic benefit to America which will in the long term enrich the lives of all people here. What sense is there in keeping them out? Insofar as they can destroy the culture of anything, they will destroy only that which is already rubble.

You wax a lot of flowery words.

Does it mean you want open immigration?

 

[OliverCromwell]

You wax a lot of flowery words.

Does it mean you want open immigration?

I'm not for totally open borders, but I don't see any sense in spending so much money and effort on what's almost inevitably going to be a failed attempt at eliminating all immigration across the border. The immigration policies the Republican party was exploring before being eaten by the current wave of populism--a program of providing a cautious path to citizenship for existing illegal immigrants who entered the US as children and significantly expanding legal immigration (especially for skilled workers), while also creating reasonable new countermeasures (not absurd expensive theatrics like a giant border wall) against further illegal immigration that emphasized stopping new crossings, not chasing down and deporting vast swaths of existing illegal immigrants--was more than sensible.

The current detainment camps are, of course, an intolerable moral outrage and should be shut down, but I think a lot of the people saying that in this thread while simultaneously calling for huge mass deportations don't seem to realize how inherently contradictory these two things are--you can't deport vast swaths of people immediately, and trying to hold people awaiting for deportation is almost inevitably going to result in more situations like what has been occurring. If these people are already in the country and doing no harm, what is the sense of trying to get rid of them and playing so intimately with the risk of moral atrocity that we have seen?

 

[Arch Dornan]

I'm not for totally open borders, but I don't see any sense in spending so much money and effort on what's almost inevitably going to be a failed attempt at eliminating all immigration across the border. The immigration policies the Republican party was exploring before being eaten by the current wave of populism--a program of providing a cautious path to citizenship for existing illegal immigrants who entered the US as children and significantly expanding legal immigration (especially for skilled workers), while also creating reasonable new countermeasures (not absurd theatrics like a giant border wall) against further illegal immigration that emphasized stopping new crossings, not chasing down and deporting vast swaths of existing illegal immigrants--was more than sensible.

Ok so legal immigration then which lots of people are generally ok with.

Border protection though, that's only issues I keep hearing of about previous adminstrations dragging their feet until now.

Not sure on the wall but that's better asked to the border protection staff and people living nearby the border who look to be in favour of it.

Heard of ICE seizing illegal immigrants from a US factory IIRC that made the news.

 

[OliverCromwell]

Ok so legal immigration then which lots of people are generally ok with.

Border protection though, that's only issues I keep hearing of about previous adminstrations dragging their feet until now.

Not sure on the wall but that's better asked to the border protection staff and people living nearby the border who look to be in favour of it.

Heard of ICE seizing illegal immigrants from a US factory IIRC that made the news.

No, it isn't. This is, in fact, precisely part of the point I'm trying to make here. People who live near the border don't have any inherent special knowledge about immigration policy and how to prevent illegal border crossings, and border protection staff don't have any inherent special knowledge about how to balance the need for preventing illegal border crossings against the myriad other needs that our government has, even in the narrow sphere of immigration policy.

Sure, a border wall will certainly stop a few crossings. A border wall also will cost an exorbitant amount of money--even the administration's conservative sum is 5.7 billion for one seventh of the wall, and given how cost estimates for the wall have been raised almost every time they're created and how government projects almost inevitably run over-budget this is almost certainly only going to be a fraction of the actual sum. A border wall also has to contend with the rough terrain that stretches across much of the border which will even further increase costs, a fact which the current administration is steadfastly trying to ignore. It has to deal with the fact that a good section of it runs through the Tohono O'odham reservation, which has refused to allow construction of the wall on its territory. It has to account for how a wall will affect animal migratory patterns that may affect environmental treaties the US has signed, how it could damage US-Mexico relations in a time when most illegal immigration to the US comes from Central America through Mexico for which US-Mexico cooperation is absolutely necessary to find a solution to, how it will affect the US' public image that may influence whether or not future legal immigrants wish to come to the United States, and so forth. These are all controls that Border Patrol, alone, cannot manage.

The Republican Party used to be the party of sober, responsible government, and used to be against expansive, theatrical government projects promoted by impulsive populists which come with massive price tag that can't even remotely justify it's meager efficacy just like this one. If the IRS asked for billions upon billions of dollars to massively expand their auditing infrastructure in a way that would only marginally increase the actual efficacy of tax enforcement at the cost of damaging many of America's other interests as well, we would say no. Why should it be any different here?

 

[FriedCFour]

In the long-term -historically- immigration is a generally positive thing, the short and mid-term would too if it wasn't for the fact that -historically- companies would shortchange everyone involved to make more money at the expense of everyone else.

Historically we also didnt have much of a social safety net. You sank and float off hard work. As of right now immigrants in US are more likely than non-immigrants to be sucking in tax money through social safety nets, making them a net burden on society.

 

[Nitramy]

My take in immigration policy is cultural assimilation. E Pluribus Unum exists for a reason.

I think the problems of unchecked illegal immigration would solve themselves if the elements that seek to subvert or fragment E Pluribus Unum were neutralized. "This is our culture. Being here means you want to be part of our culture, too" should be enforced, IMO.

 

[OliverCromwell]

Historically we also didnt have much of a social safety net. You sank and float off hard work. As of right now immigrants in US are more likely than non-immigrants to be sucking in tax money through social safety nets, making them a net burden on society.

This is untrue--there's very little evidence suggesting that immigrants take more from welfare than citizens, and even less to suggest that the benefits they do take exceed the overall value they provide to the US in terms of labor, tax revenue, etc. Almost no credible economists ever suggest that immigration is a burden on the country's economy for precisely this reason.

 

[Big Steve]

I think the complaint is about UDAs, not just immigrants period. Legal immigrants get jobs and so obviously contribute with taxes, but when UDAs get work it's usually under the table for cash with no income taxes collected, as I recall.

 

[FriedCFour]

This is untrue--there's very little evidence suggesting that immigrants take more from welfare than citizens, and even less to suggest that the benefits they do take exceed the overall value they provide to the US in terms of labor, tax revenue, etc. Almost no credible economists ever suggest that immigration is a burden on the country's economy for precisely this reason.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

In 2014, 63% of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.

cis.org

You are also talking immigration as a whole. It is highly likely to me that both can of these can be true. Immigrants as a whole can be more likely to be on welfare, and immigrants as a whole can be a net benefit to the economy. This is because you can have for example, one immigrant create a hundred jobs, 49 create zero, and the net would be two jobs created for every immigrant. That doesnt mean all immigrants are creating jobs, it means just that one immigrant who started a successful company did. What that means is that currently there are immigrants providing heavily, and currently immigrants detracting from the economy. That would mean that just by virtue of being an immigrant you do not provide a net benefit to the economy, and would also mean that simply taking in more and more immigrants would not necessarily benefit the US either.

 

[Arch Dornan]

No, it isn't. This is, in fact, precisely part of the point I'm trying to make here. People who live near the border don't have any inherent special knowledge about immigration policy and how to prevent illegal border crossings, and border protection staff don't have any inherent special knowledge about how to balance the need for preventing illegal border crossings against the myriad other needs that our government has, even in the narrow sphere of immigration policy.

Sure, a border wall will certainly stop a few crossings. A border wall also will cost an exorbitant amount of money--even the administration's conservative sum is 5.7 billion for one seventh of the wall, and given how cost estimates for the wall have been raised almost every time they're created and how government projects almost inevitably run over-budget this is almost certainly only going to be a fraction of the actual sum. A border wall also has to contend with the rough terrain that stretches across much of the border which will even further increase costs, a fact which the current administration is steadfastly trying to ignore. It has to deal with the fact that a good section of it runs through the Tohono O'odham reservation, which has refused to allow construction of the wall on its territory. It has to account for how a wall will affect animal migratory patterns that may affect environmental treaties the US has signed, how it could damage US-Mexico relations in a time when most illegal immigration to the US comes from Central America through Mexico for which US-Mexico cooperation is absolutely necessary to find a solution to, how it will affect the US' public image that may influence whether or not future legal immigrants wish to come to the United States, and so forth. These are all controls that Border Patrol, alone, cannot manage.

The Republican Party used to be the party of sober, responsible government, and used to be against expansive, theatrical government projects promoted by impulsive populists which come with massive price tag that can't even remotely justify it's meager efficacy just like this one. If the IRS asked for billions upon billions of dollars to massively expand their auditing infrastructure in a way that would only marginally increase the actual efficacy of tax enforcement at the cost of damaging many of America's other interests as well, we would say no. Why should it be any different here?

Their local knowledge isn't enough to make a decision?

Seems there's others that disagree and even did a GFM for it. Whether that's a scam or not lots of people want that wall and it's getting built slowly much like the walls of jerusalem. A barrier of sorts will eventually be built but whether it'll work is up to the future.

 

[Vaermina]

Something I feel people wishing for the destruction of CBP should really stop and consider for a moment, over 600 people die every year trying to cross the US/Mexico border through the desert.

But without the actions of CBP that number would swell to over 4000.