Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2018, 3:49 pm

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:
freeman3 wrote:I think the sewage was coming out of Trump's mouth. You just don't talk about people that way. He did not make those delineations with regard to Haitians you are making.

I just think at the end of the day this merit based system is sort of hidden racism. "We cant have Haitians because they are not engineers or doctors or software programmers." Yeah, but maybe their sons and daughters will be. I am more sympathetic to the idea of not allowing chain migration for people past a certain age. Allowing grandma and grandpa to come other and eventually get social services...when they have never paid taxes...seems crazy to me. Otherwise, I don't like this shift to favoring Asian and European immigrants over other regions.


Maybe? Perhaps they will be drug dealers or pedophiles. If you qualify, great... If not, you should not be allowed in.
Norwegians could be drug dealers or paedophiles. On that second one, do you have any evidence for paedophilia being more prevalent among one particular type of immigrant to the US over another? Or even it being more prevalant than among natives? If not, why bring it up?


Yes, Norwegians can be drug dealers or pedophiles. I would not allow them in either. However, it was Trump who mentioned Haiti, and I was staying on track with that. I do not believe Trump mentioned Norway. Perhaps you have different information...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 18 Jan 2018, 4:03 pm

bbauska wrote:Yes, Norwegians can be drug dealers or pedophiles. I would not allow them in either. However, it was Trump who mentioned Haiti, and I was staying on track with that. I do not believe Trump mentioned Norway. Perhaps you have different information...
Yes, from the reports on what he said about Haiti, African countries etc:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/16/trumps-ri ... or-skills/

NY Post wrote:he said in a White House meeting that we should be trying to get immigrants from Norway rather than “shithole” countries in the Third World.


Seriously, there are whole things on the internet where Norwegians are pointing out they consider the US a "shithole" for not having universal health, or pointing out that more people emigrated to Norway from the US than the other way around in recent years. Maybe you are applying your "prefilters"
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 18 Jan 2018, 4:48 pm

Nope. Just talking about Haiti. If Norwegians do not want to enter the US, I am fine with that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 5:03 am

bbauska wrote:Nope. Just talking about Haiti. If Norwegians do not want to enter the US, I am fine with that.
Trump mentioned Norway, contrary to your beliefs. He was juxtaposing "good" Norwegian immigration against "bad" Third World immigration. That was why I mentioned it.

Point is, Trump was not talking about individuals, he was generalising about all people seeking to immigrate from whole countries (continents). You are talking, I think, about individual vetting, which makes sense and is fairer, but costs more than blanket national-level policies. So your argument is not the same as Trump's, either in the essence or the idiom
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 7:10 am

Just want to say that African immigrants to the US generally do better than most, only partially because of racial preferences. In general, to make it out of Africa and into the US, one has to be gifted, extremely well educated, and/or from a wealthy elitist family. If you are from Western Europe, it is much easier to be average and get US citizenship.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Jan 2018, 7:39 am

Ray Jay wrote:Just want to say that African immigrants to the US generally do better than most, only partially because of racial preferences. In general, to make it out of Africa and into the US, one has to be gifted, extremely well educated, and/or from a wealthy elitist family. If you are from Western Europe, it is much easier to be average and get US citizenship.


Somewhat related.

I visit rest homes. Most of the time, they are heavily staffed by folks from South America and Africa. These are the jobs Americans don’t want.

On point.

The immigrants I know—from Ukraine, Peru, Central and South America generally, Asia, and Africa—are doing very well.

That said, I cannot understand the tumult over trying to make our immigration system more like Canada and Australia.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 19 Jan 2018, 9:22 am

danivon wrote:
bbauska wrote:Nope. Just talking about Haiti. If Norwegians do not want to enter the US, I am fine with that.
Trump mentioned Norway, contrary to your beliefs. He was juxtaposing "good" Norwegian immigration against "bad" Third World immigration. That was why I mentioned it.

Point is, Trump was not talking about individuals, he was generalising about all people seeking to immigrate from whole countries (continents). You are talking, I think, about individual vetting, which makes sense and is fairer, but costs more than blanket national-level policies. So your argument is not the same as Trump's, either in the essence or the idiom


Thank you for the compliment. I do not rubber-stamp the policies of a party or president, unlike some here.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Jan 2018, 9:54 am

Fate
That said, I cannot understand the tumult over trying to make our immigration system more like Canada and Australia


The tumult is caused by distortions, and misrepresentations of the current system in the debate.
Accepting the Canadian system, which also has three components would mean:
1) Economic immigrants. This used to be about 2/3 of immigrants in Canada. Less now because refugee acceptance has increased...
2) Family Unification, About 25%
3) refugees. The rest.But increasing due to private sponsorship.

The first category is like the US lottery system that Trump derides without really understanding it. Individuals submit applications in both systems. Only there is a limitation in the US. Then the two systems vett the applicants. Canada uses a point system that ensures those best able to adapt or contribute quickly are the first to be approved. 12 months is a common wait period for acceptance or denial.
The US takes two years to vett for security reasons only. And applicants can still be waiting after a dozen years.
The US also has preferred applicants who are sponsored by corporations due to a shortage of labor types in the US. Canada's system simply provides more points to people who have these qualifications. Corporations can help applicants apply when they offer employment. These people are often fairly quickly approved (A few months) as a job waiting for them is almost enough points all by itself .
The second category is what the US calls Chain immigration. Again in Canada family reunification is pretty much automatic but limited by quotas.For immediate family its usually less than 2 years. In the US so called family reunifications takes from 3 to 12 years, or even longer. Some chain.
The third category is refugees. These are prioritized by the greatest need, and other than security clearance people are generally accepted only for humanitarian reasons. This category starts with a number who are sponsored by the Canadian government. Then private citizens or community groups can sponsor a number usually 4 times larger. (My parents sponsored a Vietnamese boat family in the late 70s. It took 3 years for the whole family to be reunited,as mother and baby had to be sponsored out of Vietnam and not a refugee centre. )
Refugees need the most assistance in assimilating. The theory is that if the appetite exists for this sponsorship, the government should accept any privately sponsored that pass security vetting. Because the private sponsor ships are both an expression of public will, and a commitment to the required support.
In the last two years 48.,000 Syrian refugees came in. About 36,000 were privately sponsored. That would be like the US accepting 480,000 or so.Its a pretty big number and required a lot of private sponsorship for these, usually poorly qualified persons.
In order to move to a system like Canada, there has to be a common view point in society that immigration is generally a good thing, that we require certain kinds of immigrants to fuel our industries labor needs, that it doesn't matter where someone comes from if they have the right qualifications.(In order immigration in 2015 came from: Phillipines, India, China, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and the USA. Shit hole countries?)
It also means that there must be room for compassion both for family reunification and for refugees.
The problem in the US is that, although there is generally compassion there is also distortion and misrepresentation due to the political debate having moved to polar opposites. Trump and right wing racists are one large part of this...When you lie about the nature of the system, and the nature of the current undocumented populace ... You can't deal with the problem rationally. It becomes only emotional. And, like Trump, uninformed.

A vast 86 percent of Americans support a right to residency for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, with support crossing the political spectrum. Two-thirds back a deal to enact such legislation in tandem with higher funding for border contro
l
.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/american ... d=50032985

I think this position makes sense. The problem is that Trump has made a border wall a symbol of immigration control. However the wall would be a largely worthless investment, and a symbol of racism at the same time, (made racist by Trumps pronouncements on the quality of Mexican immigrants). And that is the problem. Its hard to invest many billions in an ineffective wall when there are genuine infrastructure needs that are unaddressed.
Perhaps Republicans and Democrats could coalesce around expenditures on actually effective immigration control. (With employers). But as Fate has pointed out, many corporations fight those initiatives... and that's who really controls the government.
Trump, being an idiot and not a four dimensional chess player, gave the Democrats an issue that they could use in the funding debate. DACA. He didn't have to end the DACA waiver and set a deadline. But he did. Without a plan. Or even a concept.(I'm sure Kelly will tells us, one day, that Trump was uninformed on this too.)
Now, because 86% of Americans appreciate that these DACA persons should be welcomed .... Democrats can safely plant a flag and make a stand. Trump can't back down because if he does his racist base will feel betrayed. And the rest of the republicans are left adrift with no direction. McConnell, particularly looks silly complaining about obstructionist Democrats ...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 22 Jan 2018, 7:39 am

Ricky:
Now, because 86% of Americans appreciate that these DACA persons should be welcomed .... Democrats can safely plant a flag and make a stand. Trump can't back down because if he does his racist base will feel betrayed. And the rest of the republicans are left adrift with no direction. McConnell, particularly looks silly complaining about obstructionist Democrats ..


This part of Ricky's point is cogent, but he's only playing 2-dimensional chess. Clearly the right answer is a combination of DACA acceptance and tighter rules on immigration including more boarder security, a combination that most Americans would support.

The bigger picture is that the Senate tradition of 60 votes is anachronistic. The US is the unusual western democracy in that we have a strong independent chief executive, a truly bicameral legislature, and strong division of powers to boot. It would benefit our country to simply require a 50 vote Senate majority to move forward. If the Dems overplay their hand and the shutdown continues for a couple of weeks, I would expect to see that.

The argument against, namely that when power shifts the Dems will use it against the GOP doesn't bother me. We want elections to have consequences so that people see the results of their decisions. That would sharpen both voting and decision making. It would be much preferred to the finger pointing inefficiency of the current system.

Perhaps the Dems would have done better to accept a 30-day funding that included the funding of 7 years of children's health insurance and a promise to fix DACA. It's not lost on me that the Dems put the needs of fewer than one million DACA beneficiaries over the needs of 7 million poor US children. (And I strongly support DACA.)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Jan 2018, 9:01 am

Good post, RJ.

rickyp wrote:Now, because 86% of Americans appreciate that these DACA persons should be welcomed .... Democrats can safely plant a flag and make a stand.


Shall I name other issues that poll at 86% or better and suggest shutting down the government would be worth it to make the point?

Your point is specious. Your post was folly. Americans don't support shutting down the government for DACA, especially when Trump and the GOP will agree to it. What they won't do is vote on a "clean" DACA bill because that simply encourages more illegals to bring their kids to the US.

Something along these lines is what is needed:

1) utilize a wall and other means to slow illegal immigration;
2) use “advanced E-verify.” No one could work, rent, or do much of anything without it;
3) Fine employers who employ illegals. The first violation would be a draconian fine; the second would be jail time.
4) Begin a process of screening illegals who remain here to determine whether they should be deported or legalized;
5) increase legal migration, focused on a merit system like Australia or Canada;
6) utilize a seasonal work program for some businesses.

Corporations will resist, based on #2 and 3.

Many Democrats will object to most of it because they don't want to solve the problem.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Jan 2018, 10:39 am

fate
Something along these lines is what is needed:

1) utilize a wall and other means to slow illegal immigration;
2) use “advanced E-verify.” No one could work, rent, or do much of anything without it;
3) Fine employers who employ illegals. The first violation would be a draconian fine; the second would be jail time.
4) Begin a process of screening illegals who remain here to determine whether they should be deported or legalized;
5) increase legal migration, focused on a merit system like Australia or Canada;
6) utilize a seasonal work program for some businesses.


This all makes sense. Well, #1 on a limited basis. Improving fencing where it makes sense. My guess its not in all that many places....
The problem is that you haven't addressed the DACA ... I assume from #4 that you'd be willing to stop deportations of anyone registered in a clearance system, including DACA?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Jan 2018, 10:47 am

ray
The bigger picture is that the Senate tradition of 60 votes is anachronistic. The US is the unusual western democracy in that we have a strong independent chief executive, a truly bicameral legislature, and strong division of powers to boot. It would benefit our country to simply require a 50 vote Senate majority to move forward. If the Dems overplay their hand and the shutdown continues for a couple of weeks, I would expect to see that.

Why when McConnell just stated that he wouldn't consider after Trump tweeted?
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/21/mcconne ... tweet.html

The really big picture is that the Senate is not a democratic institution. When people of Wyoming have the same power represented in the Senate as the people of California or New York then government isn't being responsive to the majority will ...
With the anachronistic 60 votes requirement as well, senators from states representing as little as 32% of the population can hold up legislation.
That McConnell won't go there is because his party used the requirement as a barrier to a great deal for 8 years. And he expects he might be in that situation again.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 22 Jan 2018, 11:29 am

Are only the Republicans obstructionist in your little world view?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 22 Jan 2018, 2:02 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Something along these lines is what is needed:

1) utilize a wall and other means to slow illegal immigration;
2) use “advanced E-verify.” No one could work, rent, or do much of anything without it;
3) Fine employers who employ illegals. The first violation would be a draconian fine; the second would be jail time.
4) Begin a process of screening illegals who remain here to determine whether they should be deported or legalized;
5) increase legal migration, focused on a merit system like Australia or Canada;
6) utilize a seasonal work program for some businesses.


This all makes sense. Well, #1 on a limited basis. Improving fencing where it makes sense. My guess its not in all that many places....
The problem is that you haven't addressed the DACA ... I assume from #4 that you'd be willing to stop deportations of anyone registered in a clearance system, including DACA?


I'd be willing to negotiate #4, but chain migration has to be on the table. It's fine when it's immediate family, but not beyond that. Also, there is no reason not to make sure everyone in DACA, etc., is a wonderful human being. After all, the whole idea is to let illegals jump to the front of the line, so we should be sure they're really as pure as the driven snow.

The wall will happen. Fight all you want. The only Democratic complaint is that it's too expensive. Coming from the Democrats, that's comical. It's like Doc Holliday saying he's going on a vegetarian diet and giving up smoking two days before he dies.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Jan 2018, 2:25 pm

bbauska
Are only the Republicans obstructionist in your little world view?


No. Your system of governance is given to obstructionism. (If there's such a word).
There are all kinds of ways that one of the branches can hold up the other.
And more importantly there are all kinds of ways even a minority can hold up the majority. Or even one Senator can block a bill or an appointment...
And beyond that every piece of legislation that becomes law seems to be litigated for a dozen years after passage.
When these exist, they will be used.
Hoover dealt with a Democratic congress that obstructed what he wanted to do..
Bush had a lot of judicial nominees blocked.
However recently republicans have mastered the use of obstruction tactics.
For more than 20 years, Republican politicians have followed one overarching strategy: pursuing maximum opposition to the president when they don't control the White House.