Trump's big National Emergency speech on Tuesday

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

concordtom said:


I sure as hell hope my wife looks like that at 78.
And some of you are wishing your wives looked like that NOW!
In 2019, there is probably at least one woman in your phone contacts who has had botox. I would think that Pelosi has had a little help in enhancing her natural beauty.
You just burst the thought of a pretty woman. I find that to be such a turn off. Honestly, I don't even like it when my wife wears makeup. Okay, maybe just a wee bit is okay. But lipstick....yuck.
Injecting crap into you? No.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Anarchistbear said:

concordtom said:

Anarchistbear said:


There is no need for a wall; there is no need for a Democrat compromise of "securing our border". The border is secure. These people are walking into here. The crisis is a deranged, inefficient and heartless state.
The border is porous. As stated above, I know illegal people who've crossed many times.
But trump's proposal is a non-starter b/c it's more about emotion than closing the border.

I'm all good with discussing a plan to resolve the porous border. I am not okay with trump's lies, inability to discuss fact, and whipping up racist and xenophobic attitudes.


It's less porous than you think. The numbers of "classic" illegals- mostly singles- who crossed from Mexico seeking work has plummeted.going from 1.5 million in year 2000 to about 400.000 in 2018. Asylum seekers - mostly families not from Mexico- have gone from less than 10,000 to 120,000 per year in the same period. Currently there is a backlog of more than 750,000 people waiting for their cases to be heard making it by far the biggest burden on the system

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/border-asylum-claims/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c5fab9fa2322




Where and what should these 750,000 people be doing while they are asking for asylum? Is poverty a valid reason for asylum? If they are from South of Mexico, why isn't Mexico offering asylum? Is there a certain amount of people that should be granted asylum per day? How many of those that used to cross individually now cross in a group claiming asylum? How does the USA verify or fact check an asylum claim as being worthy? Is it easier to verify an asylum claim of a Mexican national versus, say, a Guatemalan? Should non-Latinos be allowed to claim asylum from the Southern border? Do Middle Easterners, Asians, Africans, and Europeans do so?
Kudos to Anarcbear for answering a couple of the above questions such as noting that poverty is not a valid reason for asylum and people from countries around the world claim asylum at the Southern border. Amidst all the outrage, does anyone else have answers to the above questions. Also, I appreciate those who do admit that borders should be completely open because it is an honest answer.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I may have confused you or vice versa. My point was that we have granted asylum to people all over the world not that we have done so at the southern border. Overwhelmingly the people on the southern border are from Central America. While it is technically possible for a person from anywhere to apply for asylum at any border that person would still have to travel through many countries to get to the border.

Also you can also apply for asylum if you are legally in the US on a visa or have entered illegally- which again is the path many families take. Cross illegally and then apply.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think plenty of people can admit immigration is a complicated multi-faceted problem. What I disagree with is the idea that current immigration policy represents a crisis or threat and the government should be shut down in order to implement a policy most experts agree won't work.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mexico does offer asylum. Any
signatory to the UN convention must admit refugees. Why don't they apply? Probably because there is more opportunity in the US and if you are fleeing violence and drug cartels, Mexico may not seem like a hospitable change. This may change now that there is a new populist President in Mexico.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Also, I appreciate those who do admit that borders should be completely open because it is an honest answer.
I want to be clear, though: I do not necessarily favor completely open borders, but if I had to choose between completely closed and completely open then I think open is better.

I agree with those who say there should be (1) a clear path to citizenship for those who have already been living in this country and productive and law-abiding and (2) if you are to prosecute someone, we should much more harshly target those who employ the undocumented, not those who are simply looking for work. I also like the idea of a more clearly defined guest-worker program for things like seasonal agriculture workers. The problem with the current state is that it forces everyone to hide what they're doing, for fear of deportation. Let's force American businesses to be open about what they are doing with undocumented immigrants.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.



I agree with almost all of this. Asylum based or merit based applications for citizenship should be handled in U. S. embassies in other countries. Those here should be made citizens ASAP, even those with criminal records. Those who don't want to be citizens should leave. Guest workers should be tracked. When they are done, they are out unless they apply for and are granted citizenship. Anybody not inside the country on x date, should go back to their own countrys US embassy or seek asylum elsewhere.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is now claiming he never said Mexico would pay for the wall directly even though his campaign website had a policy document describing how within 3 days of inauguration he would get Mexico to write a check for $5-10 billion. And of course Republicans will continue to support his gaslighting.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
Why this stance?
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
Why this stance?
Yeah, that threw me too. Seems unlike Dajo and pretty unAmerican.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
Why this stance?
It's a good question. I've only recently felt that way and I'm kind of lukewarm about it as I definitely see the moral failure in that position. But here's my thinking:

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).
- When I look at Europe and the recent surge of immigrants I feel that Europe can absolutely say, enough is enough.
- When I see that Europe is being manipulated by Putin, who bombs Syria, driving refugees into democratic Europe and then uses psyops to turn the populace against the refugees for his real goal of destabilizing western democracies, I think Europe can say enough is enough.
- As climate change worsens refugee surges are going to increase in frequency and their ability to travel will be better than in times past.
- It's always been political anyway. We've always welcomed refugees from communist Cuba and turned them away from fascist El Salvador.
- I think a country can say no. Maybe instead of no asylum seekers we put a hard cap on the number, but then turn away the rest without due process, but then you end up with a crowd at your border. I don't know, I don't really have a good solution but my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.kusi.com/cnn-requests-kusi-for-local-view-on-the-border-declines-our-reporter-after-finding-out-wall-works/
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

https://www.kusi.com/cnn-requests-kusi-for-local-view-on-the-border-declines-our-reporter-after-finding-out-wall-works/
From the article:

Quote:

We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work.
Which I read as meaning:

We have no idea why CNN didn't use the report, but we are going to make baseless claims its because they have an agenda and want to spread misinformation.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).
I'd argue the people seeking asylum count as the victims of awfulness, not "awfulness" itself.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.


By shutting the doors to people of color?

Asylum Granted by Country 2016

?itok=vRkXU63J

dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

dajo9 said:

my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

By shutting the doors to people of color?

Asylum Granted by Country 2016

?itok=vRkXU63J




This is why you can't discuss immigration in America. No matter the position you take somebody will accuse you of either pro or anti bias on racial grounds.

I stand by my positions on completely non-racial grounds.
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

oski003 said:

https://www.kusi.com/cnn-requests-kusi-for-local-view-on-the-border-declines-our-reporter-after-finding-out-wall-works/
From the article:

Quote:

We believe CNN declined a report from KUSI because we informed them that most Border Patrol Agents we have spoken to told us the barrier does in fact work.
Which I read as meaning:

We have no idea why CNN didn't use the report, but we are going to make baseless claims its because they have an agenda and want to spread misinformation.
KUSI is an independent, conservative TV station in San Diego in the state of Denial.

For many years their chief meteorologist was one of the leading climate change deniers, even as he reported record climate change events. His denials took on a religious fervor in the face of contrary evidence, eventually he was 'retired' and passed away a short time later. He had been widely respected but his on screen persona evolved into a 'weathermen's version' of Cal Worthington. San Diegans who had been entertained by him for decades stuck with him to the end. He was emblematic of KUSI reporting, very selective fact finding.

In the case of the border wall in San Diego, I'm sure that the agents believe the existing wall works to funnel migrants into the San Ysidro port of entry. Like most 'job creating Federal construction projects', funds for adequate maintenance were inadequate. As a result for the last few years the existing wall is being rebuilt. POTUS views this as his new wall being built when in fact it was funded to replace and upgrade the existing wall and border agents definitely viewed this as the highest priority.

But the whole shutdown is based on Trump's insistence on building a new wall in new locations where it will have little effect, using flawed designs. From what I have seen Border patrol agents want improved access, better surveillance. more manning in these areas more than a new wall.

POTUS, who knows so little, thinks wheels are older than walls, has ignored some design features of his beautiful wall. It is designed to delay crossing, not prevent, Delaying crossing of a wall by 30 minutes is sufficient to prevent a breach on most of our secure facilities, However where The Grump wants to build a wall, it can take agents hours, even days to reach the border. and that's ignoring the fact that there is no existing infrastructure, roads, etc.. to get heavy construction equipment to the border to build the wall in the first place. And many of his expensive wall prototypes failed to meet design criteria required to build the wall in the new locations.

The debate about the border wall is not about whether the existing 700 miles of wall are effective, but whether a poorly designed wall in the rugged terrain currently without a permanent barrier is the best solution. BP Agents interviewed about these remote locations discuss better alternatives to a new wall.

FWIW KUSI has the best high school football reporting I have seen in California
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sp4149 said:

...the whole shutdown is based on Trump's insistence on building a new wall in new locations where it will have little effect, using flawed designs...
Great summary and presentation of the complexity of the problem. These are the facts that we should be having rational, reasoned discussion about, and something that is impossible to have when our President makes it symbolic and sloganeers it into simplistic things like "Dems don't care about border security," "Build that wall!" "drugs and rapists are pouring into our country."

Issue by issue he and his supporters reduce reality into binary terms of us/them, black/white (pun intended), win/lose. Not only is it simplification, but it is a fundamental defining feature of this dumbed-down version of tribal, tweet-taught America.

In a simplistic universe, fairy tales are true, the news is a believable self-affirming story, lies are facts, Liberals are evil, America is great, and Trump is a savior. It's childish. And for large swaths of white, religious voters they need a mean disciplinarian father up in heaven, and a mean disciplinarian father in the White House. I guess that feels cohesive and safe to them, and as if somebody is there to tell them what to do, how to blame others, tells them they are the good people, and tucks them in secure that nothing that challenges their beliefs will go bump in the middle night.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Anarchistbear said:

dajo9 said:

my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.

By shutting the doors to people of color?

Asylum Granted by Country 2016

?itok=vRkXU63J




This is why you can't discuss immigration in America. No matter the position you take somebody will accuse you of either pro or anti bias on racial grounds.

I stand by my positions on completely non-racial grounds.
I'm not sure if that was an accusation or just showing one possible consequence of the policy.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
Why this stance?
It's a good question. I've only recently felt that way and I'm kind of lukewarm about it as I definitely see the moral failure in that position. But here's my thinking:

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).
- When I look at Europe and the recent surge of immigrants I feel that Europe can absolutely say, enough is enough.
- When I see that Europe is being manipulated by Putin, who bombs Syria, driving refugees into democratic Europe and then uses psyops to turn the populace against the refugees for his real goal of destabilizing western democracies, I think Europe can say enough is enough.
- As climate change worsens refugee surges are going to increase in frequency and their ability to travel will be better than in times past.
- It's always been political anyway. We've always welcomed refugees from communist Cuba and turned them away from fascist El Salvador.
- I think a country can say no. Maybe instead of no asylum seekers we put a hard cap on the number, but then turn away the rest without due process, but then you end up with a crowd at your border. I don't know, I don't really have a good solution but my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.
It's a difficult question to answer. I like the theoretical notion that we accept all who want to come, but there's some practical issues that can't be denied.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.

Thank you for laying out specifics. I think that if you actually questioned Americans on the specific immigration policies they would endorse, the above would be considered a moderate immigration platform.

I agree with the above platform but I might go further:
- Sanctuary city laws are ridiculous. If you catch an undocumented immigrant in some unrelated law enforcement action, they should be turned over to immigration enforcement officials after prosecution.
- with a guest worker program in place, permanent residency should be limited and citizenship should be encouraged.
- US citizenship should require a language test and renunciation of other citizenship. Otherwise, remain a guest worker.
- chain migration should be limited to spouses and dependent children.
- amnesty programs encourage more illegal immigration. Moreover, amnesty policies are racist in the sense that they favor those already here illegally, and those here illegally are overwhelmingly Latino. If we're going to have legal immigration, acknowledge that there are a billion people out there from Africa, Europe and Asia who would love to immigrate here. Why do our policies have the undeniable effect of favoring Latinos at the expense of peoples from other parts of the world? Just because a policy is not racist on its face does not mean it is not racist in effect.
- grants of asylum should be temporary where possible. If a war ends, asylum seekers should be sent home.
- Legal immigration should be increased, especially in ways that benefit the size and mix of our talent pool, labor pool, age/gender demographics, etc.

Many of these policies sound harsh, even heartless. But the truth is we have to have rules that are consistently applied. Again, there are a billion people overseas who would drop whatever they are doing to immigrate here in a heartbeat. We simply cannot take them all in. If we are going to take some of them, it should be done according to a set of rules that are fair.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
Why this stance?
It's a good question. I've only recently felt that way and I'm kind of lukewarm about it as I definitely see the moral failure in that position. But here's my thinking:

- The world is full of awfulness. America does not need to import any of it (pragmatism over morality).
- When I look at Europe and the recent surge of immigrants I feel that Europe can absolutely say, enough is enough.
- When I see that Europe is being manipulated by Putin, who bombs Syria, driving refugees into democratic Europe and then uses psyops to turn the populace against the refugees for his real goal of destabilizing western democracies, I think Europe can say enough is enough.
- As climate change worsens refugee surges are going to increase in frequency and their ability to travel will be better than in times past.
- It's always been political anyway. We've always welcomed refugees from communist Cuba and turned them away from fascist El Salvador.
- I think a country can say no. Maybe instead of no asylum seekers we put a hard cap on the number, but then turn away the rest without due process, but then you end up with a crowd at your border. I don't know, I don't really have a good solution but my priority is America and voting against race-baiters.
It's a difficult question to answer. I like the theoretical notion that we accept all who want to come, but there's some practical issues that can't be denied.
Exactly. We'd have a population of 1+ billion if we accepted all who wanted to come.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

dajo9 said:

I haven't answered as I'm not really liberal when it comes to immigration. My views are not really something you can define from a political standpoint, though I've never really been dogmatic on immigration. I'll add this, I grew up in a community with lots of immigration and I think very highly of immigrants. Some of the illegal immigrants I've come across are some of the most hardworking, family oriented people I've ever met. Here's my view:

- We should change the law and no longer accept asylum seekers.
- We should amend the Constitution and no longer allow birthright citizenship.
- NAFTA has been good because it has tempered the chaos at the border (illegal immigration is way down).
- People caught entering illegally should be turned around and sent back, regardless of circumstance
- We should lawfully decide on a number of immigrants and accept a number based on percentage of demand by country and accept those with skills or a history of hard work / education.
- We should aggressively prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants
- Here's the catch - illegals who have been in the country for a long time, and been lawful and productive, should be offered a path to citizenship (aren't these the types of go-getters we want in America? Make it hard to get in and work, but if you succeed, we want to keep you here).
- DACA is good
- I will never support a Trump vanity project like his wall (we should spend our money on better things, anyway).
- There is no crisis. I think much of the current anti-immigration hype is due to racism.

Thank you for laying out specifics. I think that if you actually questioned Americans on the specific immigration policies they would endorse, the above would be considered a moderate immigration platform.

I agree with the above platform but I might go further:
- Sanctuary city laws are ridiculous. If you catch an undocumented immigrant in some unrelated law enforcement action, they should be turned over to immigration enforcement officials after prosecution.
- with a guest worker program in place, permanent residency should be limited and citizenship should be encouraged.
- US citizenship should require a language test and renunciation of other citizenship. Otherwise, remain a guest worker.
- chain migration should be limited to spouses and dependent children.
- amnesty programs encourage more illegal immigration. Moreover, amnesty policies are racist in the sense that they favor those already here illegally, and those here illegally are overwhelmingly Latino. If we're going to have legal immigration, acknowledge that there are a billion people out there from Africa, Europe and Asia who would love to immigrate here. Why do our policies have the undeniable effect of favoring Latinos at the expense of peoples from other parts of the world? Just because a policy is not racist on its face does not mean it is not racist in effect.
- grants of asylum should be temporary where possible. If a war ends, asylum seekers should be sent home.
- Legal immigration should be increased, especially in ways that benefit the size and mix of our talent pool, labor pool, age/gender demographics, etc.

Many of these policies sound harsh, even heartless. But the truth is we have to have rules that are consistently applied. Again, there are a billion people overseas who would drop whatever they are doing to immigrate here in a heartbeat. We simply cannot take them all in. If we are going to take some of them, it should be done according to a set of rules that are fair.


My viewpoint is clearly pro amnesty.

I also support sanctuary cities because that helps local law enforcement with local crimes. Otherwise illegal immigrants are not likely to report crime. Sanctuary city laws reduce crime.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How many people are like me:

-Support controlled border, controlled inflow of people, but
-Oppose "the wall" because it is an EXTREMELY WEAKLY DEFINED dog whistle designed merely to serve as a rallying cry to xenophobists who are fearful of change

Agree? Yes, no?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree the wall is a symbol (and an unAmerican one at that) not a solution. I agree with you, but I also want efficient, just, and empathetic path to asylum and citizenship along with border security. I don't want one without the other.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As long as we are playing the "how many people are like me game", how many people are like me and can't get that excited about immigration? For me it's just not a top issue facing our country.

It's not shy I'm for open borders, it's just thst I don't think the border should be a priority. For example, a few years ago the SF board of supes outlawed cat declawing. It's not that I'm pro cat declawing but don't we have other things for the city to focus on?

The reason Trump focuses so much attention on the border is because he can get people whipped up about a "simple" issue and frankly because he isn't knowledgeable or smart enough to talk about more complex and meaningful issues.

The border is less of a problem now than it was a decade ago and it wasn't one of our biggest problems back then. It's a distraction and a dog whistle and not one that we have to accept.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Soon the U.S. is going to run into a NOT enough immigrants problem. It's already happening. Since the get-go the U.S. had depended on immigration as a growth engine. Recently it's been the brain drain from Asia and ag workers from Mexico but now opportunities in their home countries are on a level playing field and they don't have to leave home. In 50-80 years, a generation or two...the U.S. is going to open its borders because there will be an economic need.
YMMV.
Have a nice day.
Enjoy the sunshine.
Smoke two joints.
That's what she said.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

As long as we are playing the "how many people are like me game", how many people are like me and can't get that excited about immigration? For me it's just not a top issue facing our country.

It's not shy I'm for open borders, it's just thst I don't think the border should be a priority. For example, a few years ago the SF board of supes outlawed cat declawing. It's not that I'm pro cat declawing but don't we have other things for the city to focus on?

The reason Trump focuses so much attention on the border is because he can get people whipped up about a "simple" issue and frankly because he isn't knowledgeable or smart enough to talk about more complex and meaningful issues.

The border is less of a problem now than it was a decade ago and it wasn't one of our biggest problems back then. It's a distraction and a dog whistle and not one that we have to accept.


I'm like you, I just don't think illegal immigration or border security are important or urgent issues. I'm confident that no immigrant is going to take my job (really, I believe the working class have lost their jobs to automation not immigration) and that an immigrant is not going to hurt me or my family. I also don't think immigrants are responsible for the drug problem in this country, that is primarily the fault of the users and the poverty they live in. Which coincidentally is an issue I'd like the country to focus on, reducing poverty and the wealth gap. I believe investing in the poor to help them get to the lower middle class will help provide more job opportunities for me as my job is strongly related to the health and spending habits of the middle class.
sonofabear51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Agree.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Disagree,this is the same kind of reactionary xenophobia that has always fueled the American experiment- from the Know Nothing Party to excluding Jews persecuted by Nazis, to California passing the draconian immigration proposition 187 by 59% yeas. Now the CA economy would collapse without immigrants. What changes this is time and association. Like gays there is now one in every family. It's no wonder that counties that voted for Trump have little immigrant population.

We already have walls about 700 miles of them. The amount of money we have spent on increased security and additional border patrol agents is insane- 500% increase in border agents in the last 25 years.

Declare victory already
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Soon the U.S. is going to run into a NOT enough immigrants problem. It's already happening. Since the get-go the U.S. had depended on immigration as a growth engine. Recently it's been the brain drain from Asia and ag workers from Mexico but now opportunities in their home countries are on a level playing field and they don't have to leave home. In 50-80 years, a generation or two...the U.S. is going to open its borders because there will be an economic need.


This is correct. Birth rates in this country are not keeping up. We're going to need more immigrants soon.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/10/health/us-fertility-rate-replacement-cdc-study/index.html

I also agree that there is no real "crisis" at the border except what the Trump Administration has created itself.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Another Bear said:

Soon the U.S. is going to run into a NOT enough immigrants problem. It's already happening. Since the get-go the U.S. had depended on immigration as a growth engine. Recently it's been the brain drain from Asia and ag workers from Mexico but now opportunities in their home countries are on a level playing field and they don't have to leave home. In 50-80 years, a generation or two...the U.S. is going to open its borders because there will be an economic need.


This is correct. Birth rates in this country are not keeping up. We're going to need more immigrants soon.

I also agree that there is no real "crisis" at the border except what the Trump Administration has created itself.
It's such a shame because all this time and energy and money could be put into infrastructure and education and green-technology, all things to improve our daily lives and move us forward to world leadership...instead we are looking backwards and stuck in regressive wall building like some version of the soviets in the dying days of the union.
Page 4 of 5
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.