Please explain your comment. Are you for this, or against this?Kovy said:
How awesome of you that you can "go down and pick some up" to be your little house servants. The left loves their little poor brown people don't they?
Unit2Sucks said:
To no one's surprise it's an incredibly poorly conceived idea that would not have even remotely close to the intended effect. Bussing immigrants to SF will not cause them to remain here unless you build a wall around the city. So basically the idea is to send these poor unfortunate economic migrants to a random sanctuary city only to have them redistribute themselves where they have the best economic opportunities. It amounts to open borders with a short unwanted vacation.
In short, Trump is the first prominent politician to propose open borders only he's too much of an ill-informed and lazy thinker to realize what he's doing. It's amazing that there are still people who defend him on policy grounds. He's basically the world's least competent super villain. He's like Dr Evil on OxyContin.
GoOskie said:
I believe concordtom is a moderate republican. But anyone you disagree with must be on the left, right?
He's obviously lying. The type of Leftists who make that claim and are loudest about it would never house a colored peasant, let alone live in the same neighborhood as one.Kovy said:
How awesome of you that you can "go down and pick some up" to be your little house servants. The left loves their little poor brown people don't they?
LOL I supported Obama twice. There are a few names in the Dem nominee hat I'd support in 2020.Unit2Sucks said:
GB4L - would genuinely like to hear the story of how you became radicalized.
Anarchistbear said:
So we've gone from rapists and ISIS terrorists and separating families to...let them go where they want- a pass for migrants . This is actually brilliant. The blue states should call his bluff.
The establishment Left has no interest in taking a principled stand against illegal immigration. I don't blame them, they're just catering to their base and their short term political interests. I blame their base, who don't seem to discern between illegal and legal, nor do they discern between beneficial immigration and non beneficial immigration.blungld said:
I am stating the obvious but the concept of sending them to sanctuary cities belies every speaking point of legitimacy and reveals the total racism that we all knew was hiding in plain sight. The border conversation was a pretend conversation about security, but it was always about satisfying the people in this country who don't like brown people. To suggest that sending the brown people at liberals to see how much they like them reveals what he really thinks of having to endure brown people at the same time gives his racist supporters a gleeful "that will show them" rush of spite and malice. These are not people concerned with keeping America safe. That is code for ideology.
We should have ongoing discussions about immigration, but not led by lies, fear mongering, and racism.
Another Bear said:Anarchistbear said:
So we've gone from rapists and ISIS terrorists and separating families to...let them go where they want- a pass for migrants . This is actually brilliant. The blue states should call his bluff.
US mayors call Trump's bluff on sending detained migrants to sanctuary cities
GBear4Life said:
People on this board tend to use 'compassion', a morally ambiguous term, to justify ideological positions.
Here are some more facts:GBear4Life said:
The problem -- and part of the reason why Trump won in 2016 -- is that you think sensible positions that happen to conflict with yours is 'radical'.
Fact: A considerable portion from both parties think illegal immigration is an issue that needs to be solved (shocker) and to put citizens before non-citizens (shocker)
My guess, Miller testifies and it begins his downfall. Trump will fire him like everyone else.Quote:
Trump immigration adviser is at center of controversial proposal to release 'thousands' of undocumented immigrants into 'sanctuary cities'
The Card Says Moops!GBear4Life said:
I don't expect MSM to have balanced reporting on this, but nevertheless, it strikes me that the family wouldn't be willing to go back with their daughter. This family separation stuff shouldn't be happening; I agree. The entire family should be sent packing with a bag of red vines and some corn nuts. They can stay in Mexico. Or better yet, they can live on Nancy Pelosi's lawn inside her castle behind the walls that separates her from the common and colored folks she detests but will virtue signal about to keep her political power. Or even better yet, they can live in the spare bedrooms of sycasey, bungld and the other Bear Insider heroes.
Solid backpedal.GBear4Life said:
My fault for not being specific.
Separating the child from family via deporting one but not the other makes zero sense -- i.e. give all of them asylum or kick them all to the curb.
Temporarily separating children from their parents when they are detained and under investigation is par for the course.
Quote:
Appealing to America's working class, Obama went on: "If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole especially by keeping our workforce young, it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net."
You keep asserting this idea, that immigrants depress the wages of American workers. It's time to show your work.GBear4Life said:
It's interesting to see their contradiction play out where on one hand they proclaim champions of American Blacks and more broadly the low wage working class and on the other hand actively seek to suppress wages by applauding or standing idle on the importation of millions of 3rd world menial laborers illiterate in our language.
Quote:
Economists disagree whether or how much an influx of immigrants depresses wages. Some have found that new immigrants depress wages for certain groups, such as teenagers or workers with a high school diploma or less. Others say the overall effect on the economy is tiny, and an influx of immigrant workers vitalizes the economy overall.
Quote:
Conclusion
Our research produced two broad results. First, when Borjas's methods are extended a few years, the wage elasticity of immigration is 0.2 rather than 0.3 to 0.4. Second, Borjas's assumption of perfect worker substitutability within cells cannot be correct as the wages of men and women both increased as women entered the workforce from 1960 to 2010. Empirical methods that relax the two assumptions described above likely lead to estimates that more accurately describe the impacts of immigration on native wages and that are either very small or zero (Ottaviano and Peri 2012, Ortega and Verdugo 2014).
