Quote :

"It's actually not that hard."

Quote :

"You just have to amend the constitution"

........

8/13/2016 3:20:17 PM

he's just so loudly dumb

8/13/2016 5:52:09 PM

Quote :

"Honestly it's come to the point that he deserves the JCE treatment."

8/13/2016 5:56:08 PM

I like to imagine B4C eating french fried potaters and then going home to his cot in the back of the auto parts store.

8/14/2016 12:26:01 AM

Quote :

" It's actually not that hard. You just have to amend the constitution so that it says people born here who have no parent from the US are not given a citizenship. Then yes, increase work visas and make naturalization quicker. 8/13/2016 3:07:29 PM"

So what about permanent residents that aren't citizens? Doesn't make sense for their kids to not be citizens.

The theres the fact that if this were the rule when the country were first formed there'd be no citizens...? What's different now than then? The new Americans aren't pale enough for your liking?

There's no compelling reason to enact the rules you're asking for.

8/14/2016 1:34:02 AM

^ there's no sense in responding to stupid.

8/14/2016 10:04:04 AM

^^Give the baby a visa, but not a citizenship. And killing the Indians isn't a valid argument. That was wrong, but the world was totally different back then.

8/14/2016 10:15:25 AM

Quote :

"Even better, how would YOU fix it, ignoring the issue of amnesty? What do you think needs to change?"

Allow the right to enter, live, and work in the US for anybody who isn't a serious criminal.

Establish permitted ports of entry. People come to those ports and provide basic documents demonstrating their identity, some biometrics get taken, and a background check is run. If no huge red flags come up, they get to come in.

Anybody who tries to cross at someplace other than a designated port of entry, we assume that they're up to no good and act accordingly.

The people who are allowed in do not get automatic citizenship, and as a result they do not get access to most of the "welfare state" programs that people get so worried about. Citizenship would be available, but it would not be any easier to get than it is now -- and in fact, I'd consider making some parts of it more vigorous. For example, lengthening the residency requirement from 5 years to 7, increasing the physical presence requirement from 30 out of 60 months to 45 or so, and even tacking on a national service requirement -- these are ideas that might have some merit to reduce the strain on social programs and weed out some of the more halfhearted immigrants.

(I'm also very much in favor of doing the opposite and expediting the process for immigrants who participate in certain kinds of national service, particularly military)

If immigrants are convicted of a serious crime, they are red-flagged and deported back to their country of origin.

None of the above is perfect. As far as security, some criminals would get in legally. Some of them would do bad things. But plenty of them get in illegally as it is, and letting in a few bad eggs hasn't crippled the country before. Irish, Italian, Jewish, and Eastern European immigrants essentially created organized crime in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but on balance they provided a huge net benefit to the country.

As far as welfare programs, there would be areas of strain -- but in the long run the potential payoff is huge. Immigration is key to the vitality of an otherwise aging society with a lot of old farts collecting their benefits from a shrinking working-age population. There's also a wealth of academic work pointing to immigration as a source of net economic gain.

8/14/2016 3:33:53 PM

^Well said. I don't think anyone has a problem with people coming here legally, it is just the issue of babies being born on this side of the border getting citizenship just because their parents came across illegally and illegals getting paid under the table. Your ideas sound good and it is pretty close to what we have right now. The problem is people in the safe haven cities don't do their part in deporting criminals and that is why we ended up with a murdered American woman in San Francisco. I still say we lock down the borders and limit the number to some degree of people allowed in. If we didn't then we would have to let just about every person in the world in since we are the greatest country on earth even though our government seems to suck more every year.

[Edited on August 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2016 4:28:23 PM

Quote :

"Allow the right to enter, live, and work in the US for anybody who isn't a serious criminal. "

what would you do to combat the wage suppression that would undoubtedly come with letting anyone work in this country? Our labor participation rates have been steadily declining for 20 years now, and I would expect that encouraging an influx of low skilled workers with limited English skills would only exacerbate the issue. The automation of the workforce is going to further complicate this issue, as the need for unskilled labor will continue to trend downward.

Quote :

"The people who are allowed in do not get automatic citizenship, and as a result they do not get access to most of the "welfare state" programs that people get so worried about. "

their kids get access to public education, which is probably the most expensive "welfare state" program they are currently eligible for. They put additional strains on the schools with additional bilingual teacher requirements and social adjustment programs, but these additional burdens do not come with an equivalent bump in tax revenue to support these programs.

8/14/2016 7:18:14 PM

Quote :

"what would you do to combat the wage suppression that would undoubtedly come with letting anyone work in this country?"

Those effects are already a fact of life, and will continue to be regardless of changes in immigration policy. I'd argue that the foreigners who stay foreign do more to suppress wages and labor participation than immigrants do or would, if only because there's a relatively high floor to how low wages can go in the US compared to other countries. No matter how many Mexicans move to the US, it's still cheaper for factories to employ the Mexicans that stay in Mexico.

And people tend to forget that immigrants create jobs. For one thing, they start businesses at a higher rate than natives. But at a simpler level, immigrants need goods and services. They buy shit. They create demand. I'd rather have a guy working here for minimum wage, spending it at American businesses, than have the same guy working at the same (formerly American) job for a tenth of that in Chihuahua and spending it at Mexican businesses.

Let's also bear in mind that the American economy and individual wages trended upwards during the length portions of American history in which immigration was largely unregulated.

And of course immigration has a feedback cycle, which we're already seeing in operation. As wages go down here, fewer people will come.

[Edited on August 14, 2016 at 8:18 PM. Reason : weird]

8/14/2016 8:17:33 PM

Quote :

"their kids get access to public education, which is probably the most expensive "welfare state" program they are currently eligible for. They put additional strains on the schools with additional bilingual teacher requirements and social adjustment programs, but these additional burdens do not come with an equivalent bump in tax revenue to support these programs."

Yes, there will be strains. There are already strains, made even worse by the complications that come with illegal status.

But you are flat-out wrong about tax revenue. Even the most under-the-table illegal immigrant pays sales taxes, of course, but our newly legal workers will be paying income and potentially property taxes as well. They'll be paying into the system, in spite of not having immediate access to the real budget busters, like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

The problems facing our school systems are much, much larger than any presented by increased legal immigration.

---

There's an assumption here that if we opened the door, there would be a sudden and massive wave of people. I disagree. There would be a surge, yeah. But there are still significant barriers to getting to the US. It costs money. It uproots people from their communities, families, and countries -- and yeah, even people from poor places are patriotic and feel ties to their homes. The list goes on. And I would couple this policy with a public awareness campaign targeting Mexico and Central America, emphasizing the risks and difficulties still involved, actively combating the old "streets paved with gold" myths.

8/14/2016 8:34:22 PM

Quote :

"I'd argue that the foreigners who stay foreign do more to suppress wages and labor participation than immigrants do or would, if only because there's a relatively high floor to how low wages can go in the US compared to other countries. No matter how many Mexicans move to the US, it's still cheaper for factories to employ the Mexicans that stay in Mexico."

low wages in other countries that we freely trade with, like BRIC and MINT countries, are the reason that manufacturing jobs in this country have dwindled. However, they've had limited impact on service industries that require a local presence in this country. You can't outsource bartenders, backhoe operators, and engineers as easily as you can a factory job. When you open up immigration, there's going to be plenty of workers from foreign countries willing to come here and take jobs for less than current prevailing wages. There's already too many companies willing to abuse the H1B process by importing skilled workers to replace American workers and avoid paying prevailing wages. Southern California Edison and Disney were caught doing just that in the last couple of years.

Also, foreign workers don't directly manipulate our housing prices. Migrating foreign workers that come here will put additional strain on our housing markets, causing what property owners can charge for rent and housing to skyrocket. Increasing costs for housing/rent combined with stagnant wages will have a detrimental affect on Americans, particularly the poor and lower middle class. This issue can be easily remedied with quotas on how many immigrants you allow into the country each year, but I didn't see where you mentioned any restrictions on quantities of immigrants.

Quote :

"But you are flat-out wrong about tax revenue. Even the most under-the-table illegal immigrant pays sales taxes, of course, but our newly legal workers will be paying income and potentially property taxes as well. They'll be paying into the system, in spite of not having immediate access to the real budget busters, like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. "

sales tax is a drop in the bucket. income tax assumes that new immigrants will actually have tax liability to even pay into the system, if they even pay income tax at all. While a lot of illegal immigrants work under the table for cash or run cash businesses, you can't assume that they'll work above board if granted amnesty.

I can see the increased consumption of goods, services, and housing potentially boosting tax revenues of other businesses and contributing indirectly, but case studies of school systems in places like Manasses, VA with huge new migrant populations would seem to indicate that the tax revenue increases don't cover the huge costs.

Quote :

"And I would couple this policy with a public awareness campaign targeting Mexico and Central America, emphasizing the risks and difficulties still involved, actively combating the old "streets paved with gold" myths."

I don't see Mexico and Central America as being nearly as big a deal as India, China, and other southeast Asian countries over the next 50 years.

[Edited on August 14, 2016 at 10:39 PM. Reason : India, not Mexico]

8/14/2016 10:34:23 PM

Quote :

"This issue can be easily remedied with quotas on how many immigrants you allow into the country each year, but I didn't see where you mentioned any restrictions on quantities of immigrants."

That's because I don't want any. We have quotas now, and what that's gotten us is a lot of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration creates all of the strain of the legal version, plus a host of other difficulties.

Immigrants will cause housing costs to rise, which will also cause an increase in construction of housing stock, which creates relatively well-paying jobs and ultimately moderates or reverses the increase.

Immigrants will fill service industry jobs, probably with a strong initial bias towards those that pay minimum wage (where they can't undercut locals), but they'll also create a demand for new jobs in those sectors.

Quote :

"While a lot of illegal immigrants work under the table for cash or run cash businesses, you can't assume that they'll work above board if granted amnesty."

There is every reason to believe that the vast majority will do exactly that, particularly when the alternative would be the quickest route to deportation. For an illegal immigrant there's incentives against operating in the open (any information you reveal might lead to deportation); for a legal immigrant, there are incentives for it (because failing to participate leads to deportation).

Quote :

"case studies of school systems in places like Manasses, VA with huge new migrant populations would seem to indicate that the tax revenue increases don't cover the huge costs"

I'd be interested to see those studies, but in any case it would necessarily have to be short-term. And I've admitted that short term, there would be some serious adjustments. But long-term we're all better off.

Quote :

"I don't see Mexico and Central America as being nearly as big a deal as India, China, and other southeast Asian countries over the next 50 years."

The barriers to immigrating from those places are necessarily a lot higher, and there's more risk. And throughout the region, the economic situation seems to point towards rapidly improving conditions at home, thereby reducing the motivation to leave.

8/15/2016 6:04:35 AM

Quote :

"You know anchor babies are a teeny tiny percentage of births? It's dumb to change the constitution for what is a non-issue. "

A non-issue to democrats because immigrants will give them votes. Also LOL@ you suddenly caring about statistical relevance regarding what is "an issue". 8% in 2013 ~300k anchor baby births seems substantial to me.

Quote :

"This would result in an immeasurable change to the country. Not to mention the country was founded as a nation if immigrants (it's why we have this in our constitution) and has derived strength from being a nation of immigrants and the best path forward is to embrace this. "

That was back when the government provided for "the general welfare" of the people, not "welfare in general".

Quote :

"Considering how few "anchor babies" there actually are, you'd have to be dumb or racist to be so up in arms about the issue, if you even want to call it an issue."

Now there is the real SJW argument... "If you don't want hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants having babies here you are dumb or racist."

8/15/2016 2:51:13 PM

We've been over this before, but apparently someone forgot.

If you think the established rules regarding something are incorrect and causing problems, you must prove that they are causing problems (statistically) in order to successfully argue that the rules should be changed. This is how stuff works

[Edited on August 15, 2016 at 3:04 PM. Reason : d]

8/15/2016 3:04:29 PM

Okay you're right. Open borders to a welfare state is a great idea.

8/15/2016 3:23:21 PM

this maybe too much info for this mainly emotional argument..

8/15/2016 3:25:12 PM

^^ OK let's start small and go from there. Provide proof that anchor babies are an economic problem requiring us to rewrite the law

8/15/2016 3:57:44 PM

Quote :

"A non-issue to democrats because immigrants will give them votes."

Giving birth to a child in the US does not confer the right to vote to the parent. The kid will legally be able to vote...in 18 years. No politician gives a shit about what will happen in 18 years.

Quote :

"8% in 2013 ~300k anchor baby births seems substantial to me."

There's -zero- evidence that any significant portion of these births were motivated by the parents' desire to stay in the US. Which is good, because having a kid here doesn't mean you get to stay. 70,000 undocumented parents of US citizens were deported in 2013.

Quote :

"For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/09/the-number-of-anchor-babies-in-the-us-is-actually-decreasing/405202/

The 300,000 figure does not represent only "anchor babies" -- children of parents who entered the US illegally for the sole purpose of giving birth to a US citizen. Mostly it reflects the fact that there are 11.4 million undocumented immigrants living in this country, and they have children for the exact same reasons the rest of us do.

8/15/2016 4:48:00 PM

Quote :

"Giving birth to a child in the US does not confer the right to vote to the parent. The kid will legally be able to vote...in 18 years."

And which party is pushing for amnesty?

Quote :

"There's -zero- evidence that any significant portion of these births were motivated by the parents' desire to stay in the US. "

No way, I would have thought all birth certificates required the parents to complete a "is this an anchor baby?" Survey! Motivation or intent is irrelevant.

Quote :

"Which is good, because having a kid here doesn't mean you get to stay. 70,000 undocumented parents of US citizens were deported in 2013."

Is that including rejections at the border as a deportation? I'm sure someone's already mentioned how deportation statistics are tricky.

8/15/2016 5:26:48 PM

Quote :

"And which party is pushing for amnesty?"

Factions in both do. Reagan did a big amnesty move. Dubya clearly would have liked to. Both parties are faced with the fact that amnesty is unpopular, but it's also the only practical thing you can do about the millions of illegal immigrants who live here. Its utility in getting votes is pretty limited. Amnesty lets people live and work in the US, it doesn't let them automatically become citizens. Of those people who benefit from amnesty, they wouldn't be able to get citizenship (and therefore vote) for at least five or six years after it was passed. That's a long time for a president or legislator to wait to see any payoff, especially since there is likely to be a backlash in the short term.

Quote :

"Motivation or intent is irrelevant."

Motivation and intent are what define the concept of "anchor baby." An "anchor baby" isn't just any baby had by a foreigner in the US; it's a baby had with the intent the child having citizenship to act as an anchor to keep the parent in the country.

If you've just got an issue with the fact that immigrants have kids like everybody else, fine. Quit calling them "anchor babies," though, if that's not what they are. You'll still be an asshole, but at least you'll be using words properly.

Quote :

"Is that including rejections at the border as a deportation?"

I don't know, but it doesn't matter. In either case the figure demonstrates that having a US citizen child is not an effective anchor to keep an illegal immigrant in the US.

8/15/2016 8:40:38 PM

Quote :

"If you think the established rules regarding something are incorrect and causing problems, you must prove that they are causing problems (statistically) in order to successfully argue that the rules should be changed. This is how stuff works"

More on this... it isn't that the "rules" aren't correct, it's that the rules aren't being enforced to begin with.

Here in CA there is a large tax burden from illegals. Education + supplemental English instruction, medical care, Justice system, etc costs billions for a population of over 3 million. It largely outweighs the limited tax revenue collected from illegals.

And yes it takes time before anchor babies can vote but if you don't think politicians have an interest in the long term voting demographic you are being naive

8/22/2016 2:27:35 PM

don't talk to me about tax burden. 54% of our tax burden is military much of which is wasted overseas anyway. If you're going to reel it in, then be real and actually reel it in. Don't cherrypick.

[Edited on August 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM. Reason : keep em honest]

8/22/2016 2:33:32 PM

That's odd I could've sworn this thread title was "illegal immigration" not "military spending".

8/22/2016 2:36:57 PM

fair enough. you brought up tax dollars and i just find it funny that you care about the drop more than the bucket.

8/22/2016 2:42:31 PM

OK then prove that we need to devote resources to do whatever it is you are proposing we do. I forget if it was this thread or another where GrumpyGOP provided plenty of evidence that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are a net positive on the economy, and that doing what you think needs to be done would cost an incredible amount of money making it a fiscally unsound idea. Shall we go back to that thread or are we just going to start over?

8/22/2016 2:52:31 PM

Quote :

"And yes it takes time before anchor babies can vote but if you don't think politicians have an interest in the long term voting demographic you are being naive"

Hahaha, are you serious? It's the exact fucking opposite of naive. It's assuming the worst about politicians -- that they're motivated purely by self-interest. The only naive idea here is that any significant portion of elected officials give a shit about the future past the next election.

You honestly think that Democratic politicians are going to make an unpopular decision right now, just so that somebody else might benefit from it in twenty years?

8/22/2016 4:06:17 PM

Is it really an unpopular decision? Did the DNC not just parade out an anchor baby "victim" to cry for 30 minutes?

8/22/2016 4:10:31 PM

Quote :

"Is it really an unpopular decision?"

Depends on the district. But even if a candidate lives somewhere that amnesty would be popular, isn't it more reasonable to assume that they're voting for the idea because it's popular rather than because they hope to gain votes in twenty years?

It's worth pointing out that a sizable majority of Americans favor a path to citizenship, while a distinctly small minority favor deportations. Even a majority of Republicans want there to be a way to stay legally, with certain conditions met.

But running on a platform of immediate amnesty is a different question entirely.

8/22/2016 4:52:20 PM

Quote :

"54% of our tax burden is military much of which is wasted overseas anyway. If you're going to reel it in, then be real and actually reel it in. Don't cherrypick."

No.

Military spending is about 54% of discretionary spending, it's about 17% of total spending (totals vary by year, but it's pretty close). SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt account for roughly 2/3s of all federal spending. What we spend on military is still too much, but be aware that we basically all revenue collected goes to pay for mandatory items and we borrow to pay for everything else.

8/22/2016 5:30:26 PM

hahaha Kurtis636 got Earled

8/22/2016 5:31:29 PM

And all just to twist semantics on what i said. Look, I understand why republicans feel threatened by the use of discretionary spending since it is what the government has short-term control over. They rather focus on crying about the mandatory spending on things that aren't decided on a year by year basis as an excuse for wild military spending. I totally get it. You speak straight from something like that.

Quote :

"To get numbers that approximate this, the pie chart cherry-picks just discretionary spending. But that means the pie chart represents only about one-third of federal spending. Once you include the 60 percent of the budget that is mandatory spending, the military share plunges from 57 percent to 16 percent, and the categories that include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collectively account for a majority of federal spending. Spending on food and agriculture is still small, but it does quadruple from 1 percent to 4 percent."

Its true but I'd rather focus on the money that hasn't been accounted for already and technically already "spent" ie discretionary spending.

8/22/2016 6:12:38 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/media/wall-street-journal-reporter-phone-feds/index.html

Not sure where this should go but this is egregious. What the fuck is wrong with us.

2/12/2017 8:20:03 PM

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2692037-us-olympian-ibtihaj-muhammad-reveals-she-was-detained-by-us-customs

and another

2/12/2017 8:24:49 PM

The woman that said "she didn't feel safe as a Muslim in the US"? Please

She probably thought it was Islamaphobic when she had to go through a metal detector like everyone else.

I hate it when sport sites go full blown SJW. Take your political bullshit propaganda out of muh sports, b/r

2/13/2017 12:44:33 PM

For what it's worth neither the thing that happened that I posted nor the one after mine was because of Trump. One was based off a change in 2015 and one happened in December.

Still shameful.

2/13/2017 1:05:18 PM

I doubt the one in December happened, seems like a professional victim trying to get some more attention.

2/13/2017 1:39:18 PM

^^^ So I take it you hate ESPN too then?

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/02/army-vet-steelers-ot-alejandro-villanueva-reunion-afghan-interpreter-sc-featured-espn-nfl

[Edited on February 13, 2017 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ^]

2/13/2017 4:55:35 PM

Only when they push bullshit oppression narratives

2/13/2017 5:19:02 PM

Some rumors coming that Trump wants a legal path to citizenship. Would obviously be two things: 1) good; and 2) a slap in the face to his base. Of course we've hard rumors before like this that were walked back.

2/28/2017 3:25:24 PM

trump just repeats whatever the last person told him, what this means is that anything trump says or that leaks out about a potential position is nothing more than just an idea that was in his head at some point in time

2/28/2017 3:32:28 PM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0MSg0Otwgz4

fucking deplorable

5/26/2018 12:13:34 PM

abolish & prosecute ICE

5/26/2018 12:47:33 PM

^

5/26/2018 3:53:16 PM

This is from Obama’s second term:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/06/18/arizona-immigrant-children-holding-area-tour/10780449/

5/27/2018 6:24:09 PM

^^^^

That's great policy... the children will have a better, more secure, and more comfortable life. They will go to school, college, and make something out of their lives.

Then some of them can repay their debt to the US by one day working for the government and continuing that and other similar policies--which look inhumane on the surface--to provide better lives to even more poor children from other countries!

Great for America (gaining people who will contribute positively), great for the kids (obviously), and also great for the parents as they know their kids will have a life infinitely better than what they can provide.

Win-win-win, if you ask me.

Finally Trump does something good.

5/27/2018 6:51:13 PM

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/opinion/children-parents-asylum-immigration.html

6/15/2018 9:05:45 PM

http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising

6/15/2018 9:07:31 PM

Quote :

"But the White House signaled it would oppose any narrow fix aimed solely at addressing the plight of children separated from their parents under the immigration crackdown. Press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump's priorities, like funding a border wall and tightening immigration laws, must also be fulfilled as part of any legislation. "We want to fix the whole thing," she said. "We don't want to tinker with just part of it.""

This disgusting ploicy won't be around much longer, but it will remain a terrible chapter in this country's history for a very long time.

It's insane that the White House is trying to use it's terribleness as leverage to further their stupid goals. That's now how jailing innocent kids works.

6/19/2018 1:13:13 AM