The Political & Philosophy Thread

[CiG]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/us/trump-illegal-immigrants-crime.html

Trump's claim that illegal immigration is a threat to national security is potentially true, simply because you don't know who is coming in.

The rest is rather irrelevant. Having a lower crime rate than the legal residents isn't a reason to let them enter illegally. Why add more criminals regardless of the % to the criminal pool already in the country? The entire point of regulating immigration is to make sure the people that enter aren't negative additions to the populace.

And then you have inconvenient facts like this:

http://fusion.net/story/17321/is-rape-the-price-to-pay-for-migrant-women-chasing-the-american-dream/

 

[Einherjar86]

At the very least you're saying, let everyone stay who already arrived here illegally and really, that leads to the same conclusion of why not let them all stay if they all arrive.

At this point, how do you guys justify the border's existence to begin with? Especially considering illegal immigration helps the economy and letting them stay is humane, why not let them all in and achieve a great humanitarian goal plus super power the economy... Right?

Okay, if this is your impression, then I'll respond to just this.

I never said or implied "let everybody in." What I did say, and I've been saying, is that blocking immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries is a dumb policy and won't have any measurable effect on terrorism. If anything, it hurts non-terrorists more than it does terrorists.

I'm against the wall because I doubt Mexico will pay for it, and I'm disgusted by the fact that people buy that bullshit. Contrary to what Dak ceaselessly claims, liberals are concerned about finance, and there are financial concerns here that cross geopolitical lines - it isn't as simple as paying for something like welfare programs.

I don't want people pouring over the border, but I'm of the ethical opinion that it's worth considering the precarious positions of many of those who want to come here. Many of them come illegally because we're super fucking tough on immigration; so maybe it makes sense to pay attention to more people's situations instead of blocking them because of religion or building fucking walls.

It's an ethical position. Most people here say "fuck ethics, I want my money!" Well, fuck them. Sorry.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

"Dismantle economies dependent on immigrants". "Jobs go with them". There are hundreds of thousands of able bodied, adult age Americans in need of jobs and currently scraping by on government benefits. If x number of jobs open up because non-Americans are no longer available to undercut Americans, how is the economy dismantled? The benefit to the national budget is also present, since illegals have to work under the table which means no taxes. Your economic scare mongering is 100% propaganda.

As usual, I've actually looked into the topic we're discussing while your making stuff up based on your raw perceptions of the world.

Your theory that Americans could just fill the spots is simply unsubstantiated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...eporting-undocumented-immigrants-study-2016-5

Removing all those workers, then, would have a huge effect on the industries. Gitis and Varas considered two scenarios to come up with a range for the economic damage.

As a lower-bound scenario, they assumed that any available unemployed native-born or lawful immigrant workers in each industry would pick up as much of the slack as possible and fill in at least some of the jobs vacated by the deported workers. In this scenario, not all the jobs would be filled, as they found that there wouldn't be enough unemployed native or lawful immigrant workers to take over.

As an upper-bound scenario, they instead assumed that these jobs would go unfilled and simply disappear.

They found, using estimates of output per worker in each of those industries, that the cost in lost output would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars (emphasis ours):

"Overall, removing all undocumented immigrants would cause private sector output to decline by between $381.5 billion and $623.2 billion. This translates to a 2.9 percent to 4.7 percent reduction in total annual output from the private sector."

Again, even in your scenario where Americans fill the positions, the economic impact is massively negative.

However, as a psuedo-intellectual who prefers to just guess without looking at actual research, I don't anticipate a legit response from you.

You know what else happens when those illegals go back to their own country? They create jobs there! They can also go about making a positive difference in their own country since apparently if you were to be believed, these people are little moral and economic miracles. Mexico will be far better off. Speaking of which.......

True, but that has nothing to do with the negative impact it would have on our economy.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Oh I think those other countries should also be on the list (except Egypt, not Arabic). I think I was clear about that. Particularly goddamn Saudi Arabia. For someone so concerned about "human rights" I don't know why you aren't so livid about the situation in pretty much every Arab country not named Jordan.

This isn't about what you think. This is about understanding what our president is doing. This law has nothing to do with protecting Americans and everything to do with fear-mongering.

 

[CiG]

What I did say, and I've been saying, is that blocking immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries is a dumb policy and won't have any measurable effect on terrorism. If anything, it hurts non-terrorists more than it does terrorists.

We already 100% agree on this. I'm opposed to a Muslim ban.

I'm against the wall because I doubt Mexico will pay for it, and I'm disgusted by the fact that people buy that bullshit. Contrary to what Dak ceaselessly claims, liberals are concerned about finance, and there are financial concerns here that cross geopolitical lines - it isn't as simple as paying for something like welfare programs.

Point taken and actually we also agree on this issue. The wall is still a totally dumb idea.

I don't want people pouring over the border, but I'm of the ethical opinion that it's worth considering the precarious positions of many of those who want to come here. Many of them come illegally because we're super fucking tough on immigration; so maybe it makes sense to pay attention to more people's situations instead of blocking them because of religion or building fucking walls.

Not really sure how you aren't arguing for letting in as many people as are willing to try. I don't dismiss ethics at all, but it seems to me that you're arguing in favour of being ethical to one group of people at another's expense.

 

[Dak]

I'm against the wall because I doubt Mexico will pay for it, and I'm disgusted by the fact that people buy that bullshit.

That's the only reason (and you are correct, no way in hell Mexico pays)??

Contrary to what Dak ceaselessly claims, liberals are concerned about finance

Super selectively. Again, concentric circle problems.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ornia-secede-gains-momentum-article-1.2957526

“California and America are different cultures, very different. Donald Trump never would have been a candidate here, not even a party nominee. Do we need more evidence than that?” Yes California spokesman Marcus Ruiz Evans told the Daily News Friday.

He argued California is an economic powerhouse that subsidizes dozens of southern and midwestern states that don't share its values. He said the Golden State’s own crumbling highways, bridges, levees and schools should get that money instead.

“We're pumping out billions to other states. That's colony status,” he said Friday.

You know who else has super different cultures? Latin America. Arab nations. Etc. You know who California is subsidizing? Mississippi. You know who lives in Mississippi? OH THAT'S RIGHT.

http://thegrio.com/2011/08/25/why-is-mississippi-so-red-when-its-so-black/

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Mississippi is 37 percent black, while non-Hispanic whites are 58 percent of the population. The state boasts the largest number of black elected officials.

It's an ethical position. Most people here say "fuck ethics, I want my money!" Well, fuck them. Sorry.

The concentric problem appears again.

Edit:

People in Latin America or Saudi Arabia are like, 3 more circles removed or something.

 

[Dak]

This isn't about what you think. This is about understanding what our president is doing. This law has nothing to do with protecting Americans and everything to do with fear-mongering.

How is an immigration ban fear monger? How do immigrants from culturally backward countries help Americans?

I actually should correct one of my earlier statements: Iran shouldn't be on the list.

 

[CiG]

The essential problem I see here is that the limitation on ethics informing policy is undefined. If you're justifying letting illegal immigrants stay because it's the ethical thing to do, where does it end?

 

[Dak]

The essential problem I see here is that the limitation on ethics informing policy is undefined. If you're justifying letting illegal immigrants stay because it's the ethical thing to do, where does it end?

Where their backyard begins.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The essential problem I see here is that the limitation on ethics informing policy is undefined. If you're justifying letting illegal immigrants stay because it's the ethical thing to do, where does it end?

Knowing most the ethical views of the posters in this thread, I've focused on economic impact. The argument can be made on purely economic grounds. See post 867 above.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Lol, even the VP admitted the Muslim ban is unconstitutional in the recent past. Keep letting the wool get pulled over eyes folks.

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/3Skgp

 

[CiG]

Knowing most the ethical views of the posters in this thread, I've focused on economic impact. The argument can be made on purely economic grounds. See post 867 above.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...eporting-undocumented-immigrants-study-2016-5

So you're arguing that illegal immigrants should stay because it helps corporations maintain their high profits? I recall reading that a good chunk of illegal immigrant workers (especially from Mexico) send most of their earnings back to their families, so what is happening is corporations make high profits, the illegal immigrant workers pay relatively low tax rates (if they pay taxes in any way whatsoever) and none of the rest of the money is put back into the economy via consumerism.

Lol, even the VP admitted the Muslim ban is unconstitutional in the recent past. Keep letting the wool get pulled over eyes folks.

Personally I'm more interested in the negative effects a Muslim ban will have on Muslim informants and Muslim cooperation in the fight against terrorism. Trump is creating a situation wherein no Muslim will want to help.

 

[J.]

I recall reading that a good chunk of illegal immigrant workers (especially from Mexico) send most of their earnings back to their families, so what is happening is corporations make high profits, the illegal immigrant workers pay relatively low tax rates (if they pay taxes in any way whatsoever) and none of the rest of the money is put back into the economy via consumerism.

There was talk of preventing these funds going back to mexico and using them to pay for the wall.

Sounds like a plan

 

[Dak]

Knowing most the ethical views of the posters in this thread, I've focused on economic impact. The argument can be made on purely economic grounds. See post 867 above.

Which was easily debunked because you know shitall about economics. It appears that the only area in which you appear to have any sort of shareable, diversely validated knowledge of is some limited aspects of American Football.

Lol, even the VP admitted the Muslim ban is unconstitutional in the recent past. Keep letting the wool get pulled over eyes folks.

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/3Skgp

It's not a Muslim ban since all Muslim countries aren't in the ban. Like derp. Gotta love the wool comment though. Waiting for you to use sheeple. I know it's coming.

I recall reading that a good chunk of illegal immigrant workers (especially from Mexico) send most of their earnings back to their families, so what is happening is corporations make high profits, the illegal immigrant workers pay relatively low tax rates and none of the rest of the money is put back into the economy via consumerism.

Not just illegals, also 1st/2nd generation. Anecdote time! (Inadmissable lololololololol). I'm pretty sure I've shared this before, but during my brief stint as an OTR truck driver I had the privilege of engaging in tutelage under a man whose parents immigrated from Mexico. Excellent driver, whip smart in very practical terms. He wouldn't be familiar with the term but also very red pill (machismo omg! #feministtriggering). Anywhoooo, he was saving every nickel and dime and building a mansion in Mexico. What a boon to the US economy. Of course, at least he was providing a demonstrable benefit to the US in terms of the job and taxes in the interim until he retired to his marble tiled and countered palace in our southern neighbor. More than I can say for cf.

 

[CiG]

Which absolutely undermines the concept that illegal immigration especially is beneficial to the economy. No it's beneficial to big business and the government.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

So you're arguing that illegal immigrants should stay because it helps corporations maintain their high profits? I recall reading that a good chunk of illegal immigrant workers (especially from Mexico) send most of their earnings back to their families, so what is happening is corporations make high profits, the illegal immigrant workers pay relatively low tax rates (if they pay taxes in any way whatsoever) and none of the rest of the money is put back into the economy via consumerism.

It would effect everybody, not just corporations. For example, if farms have a drop in production, we'll all be paying more for groceries. California is the largest producer in the nation. Dismantle its workforce and we'll all feel it.

As far as remittances are concerned, that is a thing. I would expect that the claim that they send "most of their money back to Mexico" is hyperbole, unless you have evidence to back it up. I know plenty of undocumented people and believe it or not, they buy groceries, clothes, basic supplies, spend money on entertainment, etc. just like other people. Hard to believe, I know. The idea that they're not contributing to their communities' economies is something that no one who had taken more than ten seconds to think would claim.

 

[Dak]

we'll all be paying more for groceries.

More than happy to help American workers work. Sorry that doesn't accord with your virtue signaling economy.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Which was easily debunked because you know shitall about economics. It appears that the only area in which you appear to have any sort of shareable, diversely validated knowledge of is some limited aspects of American Football.

Coming from someone who can't even substantiate his subjective perceptions with evdience and then doesn't respond to actual economic research that annihilates his dumbass economic theory, I'll take your evaluations of people's intelligence and knowledge with a grain of salt, to say the least.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

And so it begins. We'll see how this plays out, but a bad first ruling for the CEO of the United States and his facist minions:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chic...cy-stay-20170128-story,amp.html?client=safari

 

[CiG]

For example, if farms have a drop in production, we'll all be paying more for groceries.

Farming is a strange topic to me in this context. I'm generalising here so forgive me, but rural peoples in America seem to be sneered at by the left, as are big corporations obsessed by their profit margin, yet in this instance you're appealing to emotion (yet wrapped in economic concern) with regards to the farming industry even though I'd be willing to wager that a lot of the farming industry supported a Trump presidency. I could be wrong though, but call it a hunch.

Is it logical to assume that if prices are raised on farming goods, people will have to buy less or buy elsewhere, forcing the farming industry to adjust pricing where appropriate in order to compete?

I would expect that the claim that they send "most of their money back to Mexico" is hyperbole, unless you have evidence to back it up.

I have no evidence (will Google after lunch) and it probably is hyperbole. But if you consider even that a small percentage do send their money back, that's not insignificant in the overall matter of pros vs cons of illegal immigration on the economy.

facist minions:

*Fascist and also, never heard of fascists that support keeping the populace armed. I guess Hitler didn't know what he was doing.