Page 24 of 37
Immigration
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:22 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: it's not acceptable to lose your job or life to an illegal immigrant.
GOD DAMMIT, I'm ONLY talking about legal immigration.
Leisher wrote: If your wife or one of your kids eats them, it sucks, but it's acceptable.
No. Not acceptable. Fuck those beggars.
Immigration
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:10 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: GOD DAMMIT, I'm ONLY talking about legal immigration.
But I'm only talking about illegal immigration... I don't have any issue with legal immigration. I think our 1 million per year is a fair number. I'd only have an issue with legal immigration if the Dems legalized 14 million illegals without making them go through the citizenship process. That would be wrong on many levels.
I think this is an accurate depiction of us in this thread:
https://youtu.be/05h49R4QX9U
Immigration
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:54 pm
by GORDON
There are some who think we should have open borders, which would eliminate "illegals" by default. There are some who applaud and support so-called sanctuary cities , because they think they're above the law. Illegal immigration is worthy of discussion.
Immigration
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:33 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: There are some who think we should have open borders, which would eliminate "illegals" by default. There are some who applaud and support so-called sanctuary cities , because they think they're above the law. Illegal immigration is worthy of discussion.
ALL LIVES MATTER.
I raised a specific question. No one wants to talk about it.
Immigration
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:53 pm
by GORDON
Repeat the question.
Immigration
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:36 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote: Repeat the question.
Seconded.
Immigration
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:34 am
by TheCatt
Something something something, completely/relatively open borders, with what barriers/hoops to make that acceptable? We already accept 1M people per year now, it appears (legally). Half of that is family members. There's a good argument that increasing immigration would increase GDP, US wealth, help us pay down our debt (or at least make some social programs more affordable with more people paying in), etc.
Immigration
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:43 am
by GORDON
Firstly, a way to weed out felons and human traffickers and basically anyone trying to cross the border to do bad things. Perhaps the long process is a design feature to make sure you REALLY want it and can stay out of trouble.
Immigration
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:36 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote: Firstly, a way to weed out felons and human traffickers and basically anyone trying to cross the border to do bad things. Perhaps the long process is a design feature to make sure you REALLY want it and can stay out of trouble.
So someone comes in without any crime history, and there's, oh, a 10 year probationary period before they can become citizens. If the commit a crime during that time, what level of crime would be sufficient to send them back? Speeding ticket? Hit and run? Petty theft? Misdemeanor or felony?
Immigration
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 9:38 am
by GORDON
You can drive recklessly and hit and seriously injure a kid, and it can be a misdemeanor. So at least that.
Immigration
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:01 am
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: There's a good argument that increasing immigration would increase GDP, US wealth, help us pay down our debt (or at least make some social programs more affordable with more people paying in), etc.
As I said previously, legalized immigration has great benefits in the numbers we currently use because we're typically allowing in the best and brightest. If we did some mass legalization, I think we'd get a lot less of those ideal candidates. Meaning we'd have more people using the system rather than paying into it.
Moderation.
And everything Gordon said about vetting, too. The more people you let in, the harder and more expensive it becomes to vet them properly.
Immigration
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:52 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: As I said previously, legalized immigration has great benefits in the numbers we currently use because we're typically allowing in the best and brightest.
Of these, 48% were the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, 20% were family-sponsored, 13% were refugees and/or asylum seekers, 12% were employment-based preferences, 4.2% were part of the Diversity Immigrant Visa program, 1.4% who were victims of a crime (U1) or their family members (U2 to U5),[6] and 1.0% who were granted the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for Iraqis and Afghans employed by U.S. Government.[5] The remaining 0.4% included small numbers from several other categories, including 0.2% who were granted suspension of deportation as an immediate relative of a citizen (Z13);[7] persons admitted under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act; children born subsequent to the issuance of a parent's visa; and certain parolees from the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam who were denied refugee status.[5]
Only 12% were employment-based. 81% are family or refugee.
Leisher wrote: Meaning we'd have more people using the system rather than paying into it.
Studies indicate that as long as the people are young and high school educated or better, they are a net contributor to our system. Even older people are, if they are better educated.
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:00 am
by Vince
I'd be interested in comparing immigrants that come here through regular immigration channels compared to those that come here via refugee channels.
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:22 am
by Leisher
Vince wrote: I'd be interested in comparing immigrants that come here through regular immigration channels compared to those that come here via refugee channels.
That would be interesting.
TheCatt wrote: Studies indicate that as long as the people are young and high school educated or better, they are a net contributor to our system. Even older people are, if they are better educated.
I'm down with all that, but I still think there's a number that can shift things the other way. Eventually, you're going to bring in too many. Some part of the system won't be able to handle it.
I always picture a single family home and what happens when you start moving more people into it. I realize that's a crazy simplification, but it works.
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:32 am
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote: I always picture a single family home and what happens when you start moving more people into it. I realize that's a crazy simplification, but it works.
There's lots of empty land in the midwest. I've flown over it
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:40 am
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote: Leisher wrote: I always picture a single family home and what happens when you start moving more people into it. I realize that's a crazy simplification, but it works.
There's lots of empty land in the midwest. I've flown over it
Sadly, there are a LOT of people who actually think that way.
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:10 pm
by GORDON
Yeah. "Look at all those empty fields, all you're doing with it is growing food."
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:50 pm
by Vince
Leisher wrote: Vince wrote: I'd be interested in comparing immigrants that come here through regular immigration channels compared to those that come here via refugee channels.
That would be interesting.
I think that's the closest gauge we can get to who would be attracted to an open border policy.
Immigration
Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:28 pm
by Leisher
GORDON wrote: Yeah. "Look at all those empty fields, all you're doing with it is growing food."
Exactly.
Immigration
Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:25 am
by Vince
GORDON wrote: Yeah. "Look at all those empty fields, all you're doing with it is growing food."