It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:
1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.
2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).
3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.
4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Your narrative is completely sympathetic to the illegal immigrants yet doesn't account for the losses to actual citizens. For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered. The children had to attend ESL classes at extra expense. Traffic and housing were slightly impacted for the worse. You may think these factors don't matter, and for sample size 1 it wouldn't, but when you have millions of illegals it adds up. Make immigration actually work for the existing citizens and they would embrace it.
Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.
This seems reasonable on the surface but how far back does it go? My understanding is that the people here when the Europeans arrived were not the earliest, or original, inhabitants. If you're familiar with Mexico you know that some are very indian while others are more European. Do we screen them all to see who stays and who goes? What's the criteria? As with so many slogans "Tell that to the Native Americans" is neither practical nor even what they would desire. I'd be perfectly willing to pull up stakes and move but I'm 100% sure that the native americans as a group have zero interest in gong back to stone age existence. Doubly so for those with casinos. Instead they imagine a scenario where they get to have their cake and eat it too.
What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.
I think the "abolish ICE" crowd is the most idiotic as they have a completely unworkable "solution". How would even a state that loves illegals more than its own citizens, like California, handle several million people coming over the suddenly non-existent border? It would be such a disaster that if I didn't live in SoCal I'd root for it daily as it would serve most of the idiots here right. If we could implement it on a city by city basis I'd love to see San Francisco drown in illegals that they foolishly welcomed in.
After all, if you're connected well enough 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring a case against you regardless of how many documents you mishandle. If you're just a lowly sailor then they will throw the book at you even for minor infractions. Until justice is evenly applied then it's all a rather obvious scam.
More to the point, as soon as your protest starts to negatively affect people who are not on the opposite side of the protest, it doesn't matter what your issue is or how important it might be. In the minds of those affected, you are in the wrong, which means you have lost the public's support
It might be a surprise to you, but there are people who can see the bigger picture - a scope beyond themselves, a timeframe longer than this second.
The OP was not wrong, you will take a lot of people who were formerly on the fence and have them hop off to join the other side if you threaten or inconvenience them. The surest way to get another 4 years of Trump is to have the Antifa goons running amok at "protests".
We all know we eat too much meat for the practice to be sustainable, but even once one admit it, it is not easy to give it up.
This is true or untrue depending on where you live. Or are you aggregating all people across the globe into a single entity? Seems unfair to deprive a sparsely populated area because other areas maxed out their population. That would put an interesting spin on the immigration debate though.
Consumers decide where things are made, not CEOs. A lower manufacturing cost is only relevant if you are getting the sale in the first place and consumers decide who gets the sale. Consumers rewarded those first CEOs that outsourced with sales, so other CEOs got the message and followed. The message: we consumers don't care where things are made we just want lower prices. Its a tragedy of the commons thing. The individual consumer thinks there one decision will have no impact. But millions are thinking the same thing, let this go on for decades, we now see the result.
Things will not change until **consumers** change their behavior and show a preference for US made goods.
You're forgetting that you can simply not allow in super cheap crap. Consumers will pick from what's available, but you don't have to make it easy for it to be available.
The only problem with your idea is that China easily has 1Bil. People and Dollars. If you try to exclude them they will be just as capable as you eventually(/in a short time if they spy a bit), and their market will still be blocked from you, and bigger than yours. So they will also have better scale.
Or the simplistic version, Made in China 2025, They will spend hundreds of billions on it anyway and beat you, so you may as well make some profit while you can.
China has absolutely terrible demographics and that one billion old people will be a mill stone around their necks. Waiting them out is exactly the right move. Moreover you're mischaracterizing this. They aren't excluded, just not able to steal hard won technology.
The US gov like it that way going back to the 1970's when the USA split China from close deals with the Soviet Union.
For that to work China got a lot of US tech for free. US brands got invited into China. Low tax, low wages. Production lines that could make a profit with every generation of tech.
The only trick was the USA would have to transfer the tech production methods so the new factories in China could make the most profit.
To share everything the US brand had created with a local partner in a Communist nation.
No tech transfer, no production line. The US brands opted to invest in 1970-80's China rather that much more secure and pro US nations with the same wages.
Now China understands the US tech it wants to export everything under its own Communist brands at full price to the world.
That these forced technology transfers hasn't been fought is a complete failure, and treason, of our government. Firing squads for all involved, including tho WTO.
I've seen a certain (few) progressives justify bad behavior as "sticking it to the man", "speaking truth to power", or "punching up". Invariably, this was an excuse to be rude or make accusations about a person who wasn't in a position to defend themselves. This data dump goes beyond rudeness.
By (few) you mean every Antifa supporter, all the trolls harassing prop 8 donors including Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, and all the college students who threaten violence if a speaker they disagree with comes to their college. Yeah, just a "few" progressives.
The only reason for a list like this is to encourage harassment of these individuals just for working somewhere that asshole doesn't agree with.
That's been the way of the left for quite some time. Examples include Antifa goons beating up people they disagree about and trolls harassing people who simply donated money to a side they disagree with. All the things the left accuses others of are what they do day in and day out.
I don't care if I get a vote or not, as long as the stupidest 2/3 of the population don't.
I support voter ID laws too:-) If you're so stupid you don't even have ID you really shouldn't be helping steer the country. If I need ID to drive, buy alcohol, or fly I should need it to vote.
Norway is rehabilitative, not destructive, to those who commit crimes. Michael Moore's film, Where to Invade Next explored the system in Norway, and prompted articles like this one: Why Norway's prison system is so successful. Quote from that article: "... when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years."
Being destructive to those who commit crimes is another crime, a crime committed by the government.
To be fair Norway doesn't have the massive multicultural issues that the US has. Despite all the cheering for multiculturism it makes life harder in many ways and simply getting along is one of them. US prisons are breeding grounds for gangs, rehabilitation is not really a goal. I'd start over since the current system is so broken that I don't see how incremental reforms could ever change anything. Of course we could start a parallel system for people more likely to be able to be rehabilitated but I'm sure disparate impact would make that illegal. Until disparate impact is dropped a great many changes can never happen.
I don't understand how they're going to evaluate students.
I think that's a desired feature, not a bug. Now they can just adjust the quotas as they like without having the pesky step of explaining why [discriminated against class like Asian or white] is more qualified yet not accepted while [preferred minority who is less qualified] is accepted. Odd that it took them this long.
Yes, but it's easy for the admissions process to adjust scores for impoverished backgrounds. It doesn't even run afoul of laws against racial quotas if you base it just on poverty.
Yeah but then it might help a white male and we can't have that. Plus if we don't keep people in tribes by race and instead focus on class it might be noticed that the American dream and the middle class are both shells of what they once were.
This shit is only going to get worse, unfortunately. I've thinking about moving to a red state. While I am not a white supremacist myself, I'm starting to believe they may have been right all along. There is a concerted push to demonize the white majority, especially the men, and bring in replacements more favorable to totalitarian socialism. I recently told my sister (*mostly* joking), "Looks like I'm going to end up a Klansman."
Red states have as many Klansmen as dreamers have totally productive straight A students who just want a better life. There's a few in both cases but both also get *far* more attention than their numbers warrant.
Must be nice to be ignorant of history.
Mexico had alot of problems that were never replicated in the US. Spanish and English colonization was very different.
Your remarks remind me of the times my Mother used to tell me that Israel turned desert into farmland. Remarkably ignorant of history.
Everyone has their cross to bear but at some point they have to move on. I'm aware of history but I neither use it as an excuse nor an accusation. All countries have behaved badly in some ways at some times, are we all victims or do we move on and try and make things better?
Certainly many Mexicans were well established here in California long before the gringos showed up.
You can tell who gets things done better when two countries are side by side yet have drastically different outcomes. For example Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Or the US and Mexico. Call us names all you want but there's no denying one society built much better things than the other.
Mexico would have been better off if the US annexed the whole thing. We would have a smaller border to defend and the whole of Mexico would have been more developed and prosperous. People forget that if you too many immigrants too soon it pulls everything down. They can't assimilate fast enough. And that's in the best case scenario where we actually encourage assimilation. When assimilation got dropped immigration became a certain path for fragmenting society.
What the boomers I know believe is that a fundamentally dishonest media makes up all kinds of shit about people to drive sales.
They're making up shit about the millennials, and they're making up shit about baby boomers.
Pick any demographic that you're a part of, and consider the BS that you're being blamed for that you know isn't true. It's the same with the demographic that you're not part of.
Tell me about it, as a straight white male in tech I get blamed for just about everything.
The first two had to be felonies, which is more involved than a bar fight unless said bar fight was out of hand. As for the sandwich - did you just watch Les Miserables? The third strike has to be a felony so maybe it involved taking the sandwich at gunpoint. A person who gets sentenced under 3 strikes is no angel or misunderstood youth.
Violent crime can be rehabilitated if the punishment is bad enough. In truth the best way to reduce violent crime is by punishing kids and infants before they have a chance to do real damage - the never spank a kid crowd be damned. But that would involve way more responsibility than we as a culture seem to want to endure. Plus it would inevitably run afoul of disparate impact as some cultures seem incapable of raising decent kids.
That's the theory. But so far it isn't happening. Wages are barely keeping pace with price inflation. Economists don't really understand why. With tight labor markets and loose monetary policy, inflation should be roaring. But it isn't.
Economists fully understand why - bad data in yields bad data out. The unemployment rate number is a farce and everyone knows it. Acting like it's real is disingenuous. Along the same lines, not all job postings are in fact real jobs. Again common knowledge. Lastly if things *really* were as tight as the "official" numbers suggest then you most definitely would be seeing large wage gains.
There's been backlash against thoughtless "three strikes = life sentence" laws and against excessive drug sentencing.
The California 3 strikes and you're out was that the first two strikes had to be violent felonies. Calling that thoughtless is either misinformed or shows a strange love of violent crime. How many assaults, murders, and rapes must a person commit in your world before you want them locked up for life?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it IS that simple.
It is rarely that simple. Let's follow a simple sequence of events, then you can respond:
1) A Mexican family crosses into the country illegally: husband, wife, and three babies.
2) The husband gets a job (for the sake of argument, let's even stipulate that he gets a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, since it ultimately doesn't matter).
3) Twelve years pass until the family is caught. The three children are fully indoctrinated Americans in every sense of the word, except for legal citizenship. They identify with being American, as that's how they were raised. They are culturally entirely American.
4) The parents have been paying their taxes, abiding by all the same laws American's abide by, and have behaved entirely as any loyal American. But now they face the prospect of deportation back to a land that even the parents find unfamiliar, and that, to the children, is completely foreign.
Forcefully sending that family to Mexico is a cruel punishment, even though the parents violated our immigration laws. The children did nothing wrong, and there is no benefit to separating them from their parents. The parents should be given the naturalization test and allowed to stay, and the children granted retroactive citizenship.
While we can't, and shouldn't, open our borders to unconstrained immigration, neither should we be so rigid as to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Your narrative is completely sympathetic to the illegal immigrants yet doesn't account for the losses to actual citizens. For example class sizes were increased so their citizens children's education suffered. The children had to attend ESL classes at extra expense. Traffic and housing were slightly impacted for the worse. You may think these factors don't matter, and for sample size 1 it wouldn't, but when you have millions of illegals it adds up. Make immigration actually work for the existing citizens and they would embrace it.
Tell that to the Native Americans. I think they would have agreed with you and you wouldn't be here either.
This seems reasonable on the surface but how far back does it go? My understanding is that the people here when the Europeans arrived were not the earliest, or original, inhabitants. If you're familiar with Mexico you know that some are very indian while others are more European. Do we screen them all to see who stays and who goes? What's the criteria? As with so many slogans "Tell that to the Native Americans" is neither practical nor even what they would desire. I'd be perfectly willing to pull up stakes and move but I'm 100% sure that the native americans as a group have zero interest in gong back to stone age existence. Doubly so for those with casinos. Instead they imagine a scenario where they get to have their cake and eat it too.
What really boggles my mind is the same people complaining and protesting about police misconduct one day are complaining and protesting to make sure only police have firearms the next.
I think the "abolish ICE" crowd is the most idiotic as they have a completely unworkable "solution". How would even a state that loves illegals more than its own citizens, like California, handle several million people coming over the suddenly non-existent border? It would be such a disaster that if I didn't live in SoCal I'd root for it daily as it would serve most of the idiots here right. If we could implement it on a city by city basis I'd love to see San Francisco drown in illegals that they foolishly welcomed in.
A hike in the minimum wage coupled with real efforts to prosecute employers who break immigration law would be a much more effective solution.
Sure, how about all of the above. Illegal immigration has done more to reduce the quality of life in the border states than any other single factor.
After all, if you're connected well enough 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring a case against you regardless of how many documents you mishandle. If you're just a lowly sailor then they will throw the book at you even for minor infractions. Until justice is evenly applied then it's all a rather obvious scam.
It might be a surprise to you, but there are people who can see the bigger picture - a scope beyond themselves, a timeframe longer than this second.
The OP was not wrong, you will take a lot of people who were formerly on the fence and have them hop off to join the other side if you threaten or inconvenience them. The surest way to get another 4 years of Trump is to have the Antifa goons running amok at "protests".
We all know we eat too much meat for the practice to be sustainable, but even once one admit it, it is not easy to give it up.
This is true or untrue depending on where you live. Or are you aggregating all people across the globe into a single entity? Seems unfair to deprive a sparsely populated area because other areas maxed out their population. That would put an interesting spin on the immigration debate though.
Consumers decide where things are made, not CEOs. A lower manufacturing cost is only relevant if you are getting the sale in the first place and consumers decide who gets the sale. Consumers rewarded those first CEOs that outsourced with sales, so other CEOs got the message and followed. The message: we consumers don't care where things are made we just want lower prices. Its a tragedy of the commons thing. The individual consumer thinks there one decision will have no impact. But millions are thinking the same thing, let this go on for decades, we now see the result. Things will not change until **consumers** change their behavior and show a preference for US made goods.
You're forgetting that you can simply not allow in super cheap crap. Consumers will pick from what's available, but you don't have to make it easy for it to be available.
The only problem with your idea is that China easily has 1Bil. People and Dollars. If you try to exclude them they will be just as capable as you eventually(/in a short time if they spy a bit), and their market will still be blocked from you, and bigger than yours. So they will also have better scale.
Or the simplistic version, Made in China 2025, They will spend hundreds of billions on it anyway and beat you, so you may as well make some profit while you can.
China has absolutely terrible demographics and that one billion old people will be a mill stone around their necks. Waiting them out is exactly the right move. Moreover you're mischaracterizing this. They aren't excluded, just not able to steal hard won technology.
The US gov like it that way going back to the 1970's when the USA split China from close deals with the Soviet Union. For that to work China got a lot of US tech for free. US brands got invited into China. Low tax, low wages. Production lines that could make a profit with every generation of tech. The only trick was the USA would have to transfer the tech production methods so the new factories in China could make the most profit. To share everything the US brand had created with a local partner in a Communist nation. No tech transfer, no production line. The US brands opted to invest in 1970-80's China rather that much more secure and pro US nations with the same wages. Now China understands the US tech it wants to export everything under its own Communist brands at full price to the world.
That these forced technology transfers hasn't been fought is a complete failure, and treason, of our government. Firing squads for all involved, including tho WTO.
I've seen a certain (few) progressives justify bad behavior as "sticking it to the man", "speaking truth to power", or "punching up". Invariably, this was an excuse to be rude or make accusations about a person who wasn't in a position to defend themselves. This data dump goes beyond rudeness.
By (few) you mean every Antifa supporter, all the trolls harassing prop 8 donors including Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, and all the college students who threaten violence if a speaker they disagree with comes to their college. Yeah, just a "few" progressives.
Why would anyone want this information?
The only reason for a list like this is to encourage harassment of these individuals just for working somewhere that asshole doesn't agree with.
That's been the way of the left for quite some time. Examples include Antifa goons beating up people they disagree about and trolls harassing people who simply donated money to a side they disagree with. All the things the left accuses others of are what they do day in and day out.
Citation:
https://www.catholicnewsagency...
I don't care if I get a vote or not, as long as the stupidest 2/3 of the population don't.
I support voter ID laws too :-) If you're so stupid you don't even have ID you really shouldn't be helping steer the country. If I need ID to drive, buy alcohol, or fly I should need it to vote.
TL;DR you are an idiot and also very, very wrong.
Rude, arrogant, name calling, think all the immigrants flooding Norway are smarter than average. How's the weather in San Francisco?
Norway is rehabilitative, not destructive, to those who commit crimes. Michael Moore's film, Where to Invade Next explored the system in Norway, and prompted articles like this one: Why Norway's prison system is so successful. Quote from that article: "... when criminals in Norway leave prison, they stay out. It has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. The US has one of the highest: 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years." Being destructive to those who commit crimes is another crime, a crime committed by the government.
To be fair Norway doesn't have the massive multicultural issues that the US has. Despite all the cheering for multiculturism it makes life harder in many ways and simply getting along is one of them. US prisons are breeding grounds for gangs, rehabilitation is not really a goal. I'd start over since the current system is so broken that I don't see how incremental reforms could ever change anything. Of course we could start a parallel system for people more likely to be able to be rehabilitated but I'm sure disparate impact would make that illegal. Until disparate impact is dropped a great many changes can never happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
I don't understand how they're going to evaluate students.
I think that's a desired feature, not a bug. Now they can just adjust the quotas as they like without having the pesky step of explaining why [discriminated against class like Asian or white] is more qualified yet not accepted while [preferred minority who is less qualified] is accepted. Odd that it took them this long.
Atheists are like vegans and cross fit fans - they can't help but preach the gospel.
Yes, but it's easy for the admissions process to adjust scores for impoverished backgrounds. It doesn't even run afoul of laws against racial quotas if you base it just on poverty.
Yeah but then it might help a white male and we can't have that. Plus if we don't keep people in tribes by race and instead focus on class it might be noticed that the American dream and the middle class are both shells of what they once were.
This shit is only going to get worse, unfortunately. I've thinking about moving to a red state. While I am not a white supremacist myself, I'm starting to believe they may have been right all along. There is a concerted push to demonize the white majority, especially the men, and bring in replacements more favorable to totalitarian socialism. I recently told my sister (*mostly* joking), "Looks like I'm going to end up a Klansman."
Red states have as many Klansmen as dreamers have totally productive straight A students who just want a better life. There's a few in both cases but both also get *far* more attention than their numbers warrant.
Must be nice to be ignorant of history. Mexico had alot of problems that were never replicated in the US. Spanish and English colonization was very different. Your remarks remind me of the times my Mother used to tell me that Israel turned desert into farmland. Remarkably ignorant of history.
Everyone has their cross to bear but at some point they have to move on. I'm aware of history but I neither use it as an excuse nor an accusation. All countries have behaved badly in some ways at some times, are we all victims or do we move on and try and make things better?
Certainly many Mexicans were well established here in California long before the gringos showed up.
You can tell who gets things done better when two countries are side by side yet have drastically different outcomes. For example Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Or the US and Mexico. Call us names all you want but there's no denying one society built much better things than the other.
Mexico would have been better off if the US annexed the whole thing. We would have a smaller border to defend and the whole of Mexico would have been more developed and prosperous. People forget that if you too many immigrants too soon it pulls everything down. They can't assimilate fast enough. And that's in the best case scenario where we actually encourage assimilation. When assimilation got dropped immigration became a certain path for fragmenting society.
What the boomers I know believe is that a fundamentally dishonest media makes up all kinds of shit about people to drive sales. They're making up shit about the millennials, and they're making up shit about baby boomers. Pick any demographic that you're a part of, and consider the BS that you're being blamed for that you know isn't true. It's the same with the demographic that you're not part of.
Tell me about it, as a straight white male in tech I get blamed for just about everything.
The first two had to be felonies, which is more involved than a bar fight unless said bar fight was out of hand. As for the sandwich - did you just watch Les Miserables? The third strike has to be a felony so maybe it involved taking the sandwich at gunpoint. A person who gets sentenced under 3 strikes is no angel or misunderstood youth.
Violent crime can be rehabilitated if the punishment is bad enough. In truth the best way to reduce violent crime is by punishing kids and infants before they have a chance to do real damage - the never spank a kid crowd be damned. But that would involve way more responsibility than we as a culture seem to want to endure. Plus it would inevitably run afoul of disparate impact as some cultures seem incapable of raising decent kids.
That's the theory. But so far it isn't happening. Wages are barely keeping pace with price inflation. Economists don't really understand why. With tight labor markets and loose monetary policy, inflation should be roaring. But it isn't.
Economists fully understand why - bad data in yields bad data out. The unemployment rate number is a farce and everyone knows it. Acting like it's real is disingenuous. Along the same lines, not all job postings are in fact real jobs. Again common knowledge. Lastly if things *really* were as tight as the "official" numbers suggest then you most definitely would be seeing large wage gains.
There's been backlash against thoughtless "three strikes = life sentence" laws and against excessive drug sentencing.
The California 3 strikes and you're out was that the first two strikes had to be violent felonies. Calling that thoughtless is either misinformed or shows a strange love of violent crime. How many assaults, murders, and rapes must a person commit in your world before you want them locked up for life?