Immigration, what do the 'progressives' want?

[bellisarius]

In that the "Democrats do not want open borders - stop lying" thread has gone off the rails I thought I'd ask a question.

Exactly WHAT do the democrats/progressives want to see as far as immigration policy is concerned? No vague bullshit, lay it out in as much detail as you can. Use polysylabic's where and if required, most of us can read.

As a starting point can we possibly agree that our (the US's) immigration laws are antiquated and that our border security is broken?

I will also point out as a matter of history that the US did basically have an open border policy until 1926. Even so ALL of the immigrants were health checked and quarantined, background checked as well as possible considering the age, and more than a few were sent right back on the next ship sailing to from whence they came. Names and family associations were taken and inscribed in the 'Big Book of Immigrants.' There was order in the system even then.

So, what are your plans, desires, whatever?

 

[Luk]

In that the "Democrats do not want open borders - stop lying" thread has gone off the rails I thought I'd ask a question.

Exactly WHAT do the democrats/progressives want to see as far as immigration policy is concerned? No vague bullshit, lay it out in as much detail as you can. Use polysylabic's where and if required, most of us can read.

As a starting point can we possibly agree that our (the US's) immigration laws are antiquated and that our border security is broken?

I will also point out as a matter of history that the US did basically have an open border policy until 1926. Even so ALL of the immigrants were health checked and quarantined, background checked as well as possible considering the age, and more than a few were sent right back on the next ship sailing to from whence they came. Names and family associations were taken and inscribed in the 'Big Book of Immigrants.' There was order in the system even then.

So, what are your plans, desires, whatever?

• Abolish ICE. It's hated by many on both sides with its overreach and shithead officers.
• Enforce immigration laws that are currently in place. It's been proven over and over that immigrants do not cause more crime than natives.
• Change the tactics. Since 45 is failing miserably on whatever the fuck he was doing with MS13, we need to target actual illegals committing crimes first and round up the rest later.

Now, your turn.

 

[BotanyBoy]

• Abolish ICE. It's hated by many on both sides with its overreach and shithead officers.
• Enforce immigration laws that are currently in place. It's been proven over and over that immigrants do not cause more crime than natives.
• Change the tactics. Since 45 is failing miserably on whatever the fuck he was doing with MS13, we need to target actual illegals committing crimes first and round up the rest later.

Now, your turn.

How do you enforce immigration if you abolish ICE?



This is why everyone with a clue thinks all those (D) marches with support from (D)'s like you for abolishing ICE and chanting "No borders, No walls, no nations at all!!" want open borders.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security.

 

[bellisarius]

How do you enforce immigration if you abolish ICE?



This is why everyone with a clue thinks all those (D) marches with support from (D)'s like you for abolishing ICE and chanting "No borders, No walls, no nations at all!!" want open borders.

Well you have to give him credit for at least coming up with some bullet points.

ICE in some form is always going to be there if your goal is to enforce the law. Rename it the "Illegal Deportation Bureau" if you want, the job is the same.

Trump (45) has ordered the the current laws be enforced. Obviously that has incensed some. And it also tends to point out those areas where our laws are antiquated re. today's realities.

And under those laws ALL illegals are guilty of a criminal act. First offense is a misdemeanor, second and beyond are felonies.

The problem is that you can't demand that the law be enforced and then turn around and become irate when it is. And that is the question I'm asking, how would YOU change the law?

 

[Luk]

Well you have to give him credit for at least coming up with some bullet points.

ICE in some form is always going to be there if your goal is to enforce the law. Rename it the "Illegal Deportation Bureau" if you want, the job is the same.

Trump (45) has ordered the the current laws be enforced. Obviously that has incensed some. And it also tends to point out those areas where our laws are antiquated re. today's realities.

And under those laws ALL illegals are guilty of a criminal act. First offense is a misdemeanor, second and beyond are felonies.

The problem is that you can't demand that the law be enforced and then turn around and become irate when it is. And that is the question I'm asking, how would YOU change the law?

Good job on agreeing with me and simultaneously taking a flaccid pot-shot. Don't insult me with that weak shit, old man. Bring your A game or take a seat on the bench with Botany and Q-####.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Good job on agreeing with me and simultaneously taking a flaccid pot-shot. Don't insult me with that weak shit, old man. Bring your A game or take a seat on the bench with Botany and Q-####.

The girlfriend is feeding you answers. Lolololololololo....

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think we need to secure our borders and control our immigration.

But we do need immigration policy reform.

I think it needs to wait for some other issues to be sorted before we decide how to proceed with it though.

If we go left/social with things? Gotta tighten it up.

In the unlikely event we get back to being mostly capitalistic and free? Open it up and make it easy...just fill out your paperwork and boom...M'arican!

 

[KeithD]

Different "progressives" want different things, of course.

What I'd like to see, recognizing that the issue is a genuine problem, is an honest inclusiveness by lawmakers in a comprehensive study of what's wrong with the current laws on immigration and what might be done to fix them--without lying and pretending in playing to fears and prejudice.

In the meantime not flouting the laws in place.

Accepting that building a physical wall is idiocy and just stop flogging that one.

Immigration is not as much a screamy issue anyway as it is the Trump's administration use of it to foment fear and prejudice just to keep blatantly corrupt and vile people in power.

 

[Luk]

Different "progressives" want different things, of course.

What I'd like to see, recognizing that the issue is a genuine problem, is an honest inclusiveness by lawmakers in a comprehensive study of what's wrong with the current laws on immigration and what might be done to fix them--without lying and pretending in playing to fears and prejudice.

In the meantime not flouting the laws in place.

Accepting that building a physical wall is idiocy and just stop flogging that one.

Immigration is not as much a screamy issue anyway as it is the Trump's administration use of it to foment fear and prejudice just to keep blatantly corrupt and vile people in power.

That's true and Ishtard wouldn't know a progressive if one fell out of the wine box and right down his cake hole.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well you have to give him credit for at least coming up with some bullet points.

ICE in some form is always going to be there if your goal is to enforce the law. Rename it the "Illegal Deportation Bureau" if you want, the job is the same.

I know...that's why I just slapped the shit out of him with that question and why he's now trying to pretend that I'm "on the bench" , as if he has the authority to bench anyone on the GB.

Legal immigration, within reasonable limits, that meets the needs of families, communities, and the economy as well as maintains the United States’ role as a beacon of hope for people seeking safety, freedom, and security.

What reasonable limits?

Define "beacon of hope" what EXACTLY does that role include?

It's a great sounding sound bit to those who don't think about what's being said.

Good job on agreeing with me and simultaneously taking a flaccid pot-shot. Don't insult me with that weak shit, old man. Bring your A game or take a seat on the bench with Botany and Q-####.

LOL

Answer the question or be the bitch on the bench.

If you abolish ICE who's going to enforce the immigration and customs laws?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

• Abolish ICE. It's hated by many on both sides with its overreach and shithead officers.
• Enforce immigration laws that are currently in place. It's been proven over and over that immigrants do not cause more crime than natives.
• Change the tactics. Since 45 is failing miserably on whatever the fuck he was doing with MS13, we need to target actual illegals committing crimes first and round up the rest later.

Now, your turn.

Why do you think customs enforcement should be abandoned?

 

[CandiCame]

Honestly... illegal immigration is not on my radar. I see it as a non-issue. I don't understand why it's policed at all.

Like, I understand why you would need to give someone something besides a SS# so that they can pay taxes- but it should be a one and done form, not a whole big process. And I don't mean a work visa that has to be renewed and shit like you're on fucking probation, I mean an ID similar to a SS# that fulfills the same purpose.

It shouldn't be MORE illegal for someone who isn't a citizen to bring drugs or weapons into the country than for someone who is.

There should be no bans based on country of origin.

Once you're here, you're here. No backsies. Doesn't matter how you got here, doesn't matter if you had to swim. No more fucking shooting people who are trying to cross a desert like we're reenacting Mad Max.

All people should be given the same rights as citizens, like the right to a trial, and not being detained before that trail unless they're deemed a flight risk on the same grounds that a citizen would be- and I actually don't like flight risk laws in general and have a lot more to say about that, but it's off-topic. The whole "trying children and holding them in internment camps" thing is bullshit and we ALL know it. I don't care who started it. It's not cool. In 20 years we're going to have an entire generation of people who developed learned helplessness and an inability to bond as children because of those places- developmental psychologists are having a field day- and they're going to have empathy problems because of it. Yhall are out here creating serial killers and expecting no one to give a shit. But people do give shits.

That would also mean that human labor laws and human rights violations would get treated properly, which would give employers less incentive to hire immigrants- especially in the agricultural industries where people are most often taken advantage of.

Also we really need to stop giving the agricultural industry free reign to violate child labor laws, which is somewhat related.

Basically, I don't understand why this is a thing. I don't know why we're criminalizing traveling and settling. No one has ever explained it to me in a way that made sense. Our biggest problem is DOMESTIC terrorism, not acts of violence from immigrants. I'm sure some folks who immigrated do commit crimes- hell if you come from somewhere like North Korea where I'm sure you're used to stabbing people over a loaf of bread like it's a flat-screen on sell during Black Friday, you're probably gonna be pretty twitchy. Welcome to the states- here we trample people to death to get a good deal on a toaster oven.

So that's my two cents. Don't like it, go back to Europe, paleface.

 

[bellisarius]

Some other points to consider.

The reason that both the democrats and more than a few republicans want wholesale immigration is to prop up Social Security and garner votes (political power). Regarding the political power the democrats would seem to have the edge there. Regarding Social Security, or the tax base in general, that is a false hope.

During the Industrial Age and even the Service Age bringing more bodies in to pay the Payroll Tax (the most regressive tax of all) made sense. We are now well into the transformation to the Automation Age and wholesale immigration makes NO sense at all. To illustrate, as an employer there is no way I'm going to hire an employee that can call in sick, wants a vacation, demands a raise, wants me to contribute to his/her 401K, or where I have to match their payroll contribution when I can buy a robot that does the same job 24/7/365 without any of the aforementioned demands. The point being that the demand for low skilled labor, and some middle level labor, is going to drop off the edge of the table. They just aren't going to be needed. That means that those that are already here filling those jobs are going to become burdens to society. So why in the world would you want to bring in even more people who will have an ever decreasing chance of being part of a productive economy?

 

[KeithD]

Some other points to consider.

The reason that both the democrats and more than a few republicans want wholesale immigration

Your premise is shit. You could probably fit the people of any stripe who want "wholesale immigration" in a breadbox.

This is just another one of those Trumpian lies Trump and you Trumpettes are peddling.

 

[bellisarius]

Honestly... illegal immigration is not on my radar. I see it as a non-issue. I don't understand why it's policed at all.

Like, I understand why you would need to give someone something besides a SS# so that they can pay taxes- but it should be a one and done form, not a whole big process. And I don't mean a work visa that has to be renewed and shit like you're on fucking probation, I mean an ID similar to a SS# that fulfills the same purpose.

It shouldn't be MORE illegal for someone who isn't a citizen to bring drugs or weapons into the country than for someone who is.

There should be no bans based on country of origin.

Once you're here, you're here. No backsies. Doesn't matter how you got here, doesn't matter if you had to swim. No more fucking shooting people who are trying to cross a desert like we're reenacting Mad Max.

All people should be given the same rights as citizens, like the right to a trial, and not being detained before that trail unless they're deemed a flight risk on the same grounds that a citizen would be- and I actually don't like flight risk laws in general and have a lot more to say about that, but it's off-topic. The whole "trying children and holding them in internment camps" thing is bullshit and we ALL know it. I don't care who started it. It's not cool. In 20 years we're going to have an entire generation of people who developed learned helplessness and an inability to bond as children because of those places- developmental psychologists are having a field day- and they're going to have empathy problems because of it. Yhall are out here creating serial killers and expecting no one to give a shit. But people do give shits.

That would also mean that human labor laws and human rights violations would get treated properly, which would give employers less incentive to hire immigrants- especially in the agricultural industries where people are most often taken advantage of.

Also we really need to stop giving the agricultural industry free reign to violate child labor laws, which is somewhat related.

Basically, I don't understand why this is a thing. I don't know why we're criminalizing traveling and settling. No one has ever explained it to me in a way that made sense. Our biggest problem is DOMESTIC terrorism, not acts of violence from immigrants. I'm sure some folks who immigrated do commit crimes- hell if you come from somewhere like North Korea where I'm sure you're used to stabbing people over a loaf of bread like it's a flat-screen on sell during Black Friday, you're probably gonna be pretty twitchy. Welcome to the states- here we trample people to death to get a good deal on a toaster oven.

So that's my two cents. Don't like it, go back to Europe, paleface.

That's "Open Border" dude.

 

[CandiCame]

Some other points to consider.

The reason that both the democrats and more than a few republicans want wholesale immigration is to prop up Social Security and garner votes (political power). Regarding the political power the democrats would seem to have the edge there. Regarding Social Security, or the tax base in general, that is a false hope.

During the Industrial Age and even the Service Age bringing more bodies in to pay the Payroll Tax (the most regressive tax of all) made sense. We are now well into the transformation to the Automation Age and wholesale immigration makes NO sense at all. To illustrate, as an employer there is no way I'm going to hire an employee that can call in sick, wants a vacation, demands a raise, wants me to contribute to his/her 401K, or where I have to match their payroll contribution when I can buy a robot that does the same job 24/7/365 without any of the aforementioned demands. The point being that the demand for low skilled labor, and some middle level labor, is going to drop off the edge of the table. They just aren't going to be needed. That means that those that are already here filling those jobs are going to become burdens to society. So why in the world would you want to bring in even more people who will have an ever decreasing chance of being part of a productive economy?

Because I'm not a capitalist pig-dog who sees people only as the money they can make me, you absolute jackass.

You know, if we didn't pretend like automation was taking our jobs away because we created a false sense under capitalism that somehow made the owners rather than the masses masters of the economic structure- this would not be an issue.

Those who have the means of production are the ones who are really in control of a capitalist state. The reason we have those laws is not to protect the workers- it's because management decided they were better than the guillotine. One of these days those people are going to push too far and be forced to remember that.

If people want to automate, automate. We'll adapt. Remember how self-checkouts were supposed to replace cashiers but Wal-mart is constantly hiring? Remember how mobile ordering was supposed to decrease employee demand at fast food places, but again, every McDonalds has a "now hiring" sign up.

The fact of the matter is that automation DOESN'T decrease low-level employment- it just makes things easier for the consumer, AND it WOULD allow employers to offer higher wages if they didn't want to suckle off the teet of Uncle Sam and force us to subsidize their workforce, because the fact of the matter is that a growing population means that ESPECIALLY during the transition period, your customer base is going to grow, and you'll need new, better-trained employees to do things that humans do- like cook food, build the rapport that creates sales, serve food (customers would rather have a hot waiter or barmaid than a robot, we've tried both and we know what they want) and pretty much every other job like that.

The only job that automation has been effective at is manufacturing, and even then, we need human employees to work alongside them.

The fact of the matter is that you CAN'T buy a robot and get it to work like a human. Maybe one day, but we're a long way from that singularity.

When we get there, I, for one, will welcome our new robot overlords and ask them dumbass questions like I go OK Google, and be absolutely delighted that I don't have to work as long or hard a job because they're willing to do it for me.

Dude. You've seen my other posts. About accounting.

People legit said this bullshit about calculators and tax software. "I don't need a math monkey! I've got software now to do math! And by that I mean I'll be back in two weeks BEGGING you to fix what my robot fucked up."

 

[CandiCame]

That's "Open Border" dude.

Yeah, bro, I made my stance pretty clear in your other thread. No one has ever given me a reason to believe otherwise.

Open um up like a Wal-mart gate on black Friday. Bring it.

 

[bellisarius]

Yeah, bro, I made my stance pretty clear in your other thread. No one has ever given me a reason to believe otherwise.

Open um up like a Wal-mart gate on black Friday. Bring it.

Eliminate ALL social safety nets and I'll agree with you.

 

[CandiCame]

Eliminate ALL social safety nets and I'll agree with you.

Why? I math and you don't. I know more about that than you.

If we stopped subsidizing JUST wal-mart, no other corporation, just Wal-mart we could give every current taxpayer in the states something like an extra $5,000 refundable tax credit. I did the math once just for funsies.

If we had an increasing consumer population, and did an actual safety net like the UK where everyone got a base, like, $500 a month, and instituted a maximum wage on a percentage basis, probably around 1000x, we would be fucking unstoppable. Economists and math nerds have been saying that since the 80s.

We can math it out, yhall who can't add just need to get the fuck out the way.

Automation is a GOOD thing, a healthy, productive populace that isn't constantly stressed over survival is a GOOD thing. If yhall would sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, we could be on some Jetsons shit, but nooooooooo, we gotta give equal time to dumbasses who can't add up a budget if their life depended on it just because some corporation is paying them to say a bunch of stupid shit.

Here's the thing. I don't really care if you agree with me? Because the truth isn't dependent on how much someone believes in it. That's why I like math- numbers add up or they don't. Shit works or it doesn't. You can't bullshit it. It is what it is- you don't have to be happy about it-

But this really is a "sustainable economy ready to go whenever" type of thing.

And it's so weird watching people who AREN'T trained in it dance around dumbassery. "Millenials are killing X industry"- yeah, bitch, because they're a labor force now, and the free market says kids don't want to spend money they ain't got on shiny rocks mined using child slave labor. How about you study the trends and know your consumer and adapt to them?

How long do you think money stays in circulation among the lowest rung of the SES as compared to the highest. Don't google it- tell me off the top of your head. If you don't know the right answer to that simple question then hush and let people who know what they're talking about handle it.

If you CAN answer that question correctly, you know why a big population with proper safety nets is the best possible way to run an economy- if the top is policed properly.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because I'm not a capitalist pig-dog who sees people only as the money they can make me, you absolute jackass.

You know, if we didn't pretend like automation was taking our jobs away because we created a false sense under capitalism that somehow made the owners rather than the masses masters of the economic structure- this would not be an issue.

LOL I love it.

He doesn't realize that capitalism is about freedom not servicing the collective masses.

Fucking moron probably couldn't define capitalism if you gave him a dictionary.

 

[Comshaw]

Why? I math and you don't. I know more about that than you.

If we stopped subsidizing JUST wal-mart, no other corporation, just Wal-mart we could give every current taxpayer in the states something like an extra $5,000 refundable tax credit. I did the math once just for funsies.

If we had an increasing consumer population, and did an actual safety net like the UK where everyone got a base, like, $500 a month, and instituted a maximum wage on a percentage basis, probably around 1000x, we would be fucking unstoppable. Economists and math nerds have been saying that since the 80s.

We can math it out, yhall who can't add just need to get the fuck out the way.

Automation is a GOOD thing, a healthy, productive populace that isn't constantly stressed over survival is a GOOD thing. If yhall would sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, we could be on some Jetsons shit, but nooooooooo, we gotta give equal time to dumbasses who can't add up a budget if their life depended on it just because some corporation is paying them to say a bunch of stupid shit.

Here's the thing. I don't really care if you agree with me? Because the truth isn't dependent on how much someone believes in it. That's why I like math- numbers add up or they don't. Shit works or it doesn't. You can't bullshit it. It is what it is- you don't have to be happy about it-

But this really is a "sustainable economy ready to go whenever" type of thing.

And it's so weird watching people who AREN'T trained in it dance around dumbassery. "Millenials are killing X industry"- yeah, bitch, because they're a labor force now, and the free market says kids don't want to spend money they ain't got on shiny rocks mined using child slave labor. How about you study the trends and know your consumer and adapt to them?

How long do you think money stays in circulation among the lowest rung of the SES as compared to the highest. Don't google it- tell me off the top of your head. If you don't know the right answer to that simple question then hush and let people who know what they're talking about handle it.

If you CAN answer that question correctly, you know why a big population with proper safety nets is the best possible way to run an economy- if the top is policed properly.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CleanAdoredBackswimmer-max-1mb.gif

Christ on a Crutch Ishy! That gotta' hurt!


Comshaw

 

[bellisarius]

Why? I math and you don't. I know more about that than you.

If we stopped subsidizing JUST wal-mart, no other corporation, just Wal-mart we could give every current taxpayer in the states something like an extra $5,000 refundable tax credit. I did the math once just for funsies.

If we had an increasing consumer population, and did an actual safety net like the UK where everyone got a base, like, $500 a month, and instituted a maximum wage on a percentage basis, probably around 1000x, we would be fucking unstoppable. Economists and math nerds have been saying that since the 80s.

We can math it out, yhall who can't add just need to get the fuck out the way.

Automation is a GOOD thing, a healthy, productive populace that isn't constantly stressed over survival is a GOOD thing. If yhall would sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, we could be on some Jetsons shit, but nooooooooo, we gotta give equal time to dumbasses who can't add up a budget if their life depended on it just because some corporation is paying them to say a bunch of stupid shit.

Here's the thing. I don't really care if you agree with me? Because the truth isn't dependent on how much someone believes in it. That's why I like math- numbers add up or they don't. Shit works or it doesn't. You can't bullshit it. It is what it is- you don't have to be happy about it-

But this really is a "sustainable economy ready to go whenever" type of thing.

And it's so weird watching people who AREN'T trained in it dance around dumbassery. "Millenials are killing X industry"- yeah, bitch, because they're a labor force now, and the free market says kids don't want to spend money they ain't got on shiny rocks mined using child slave labor. How about you study the trends and know your consumer and adapt to them?

How long do you think money stays in circulation among the lowest rung of the SES as compared to the highest. Don't google it- tell me off the top of your head. If you don't know the right answer to that simple question then hush and let people who know what they're talking about handle it.

If you CAN answer that question correctly, you know why a big population with proper safety nets is the best possible way to run an economy- if the top is policed properly.

No you don't.

I think the phrase I used was "all social safety nets." I assumed you might have inferred that corporate welfare was part of the paradigm. What you are doing is nothing more than justifying the movement from one sort of welfare to another. You can work that all out with your pencil but you're just applying 'Finnegan's Finagling Factor.'

The bottom line is that when it comes to humans wants/needs will always exceed resources.

We All Just Want to be Rock and Roll Stars.

End all the wealth transfer payments while automation accelerates and let's see where it all ends.

 

[Luk]

Why do you think customs enforcement should be abandoned?

I probably should have better explained for someone like you but just didn't want to and still don't.

But I'm in a good mood so I will explain it better. Abolish ICE meant just that. Enforce current laws meant just that. It's been failing since inception according to 45 so it obviously needs to go. How did we enforce immigration before ICE?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Why do you think customs enforcement should be abandoned?

He can't explain, he probably still doesn't understand how fucked up he is.

I probably should have better explained for someone like you but just didn't want to and still don't.

You can't dumb ass.

But I'm in a good mood so I will explain it better. Abolish ICE meant just that. Enforce current laws meant just that.

Moron....ICE enforces the laws.

You can't have both. You either have enforcement (ICE) or you don't, which is open borders.

How did we enforce immigration before ICE?

2 separate agencies, Customs and Immigration that are now 1 agency under the Department of Homeland Security called ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

You want to ban the people who enforce the laws you claim to want enforced....

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?