Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immigrants good for me and you? Bad? How to make a good answer that is accurate?
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 321 of 353 (839721)
09-13-2018 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Faith
09-13-2018 6:53 PM


About 40% of Hispanics are Protestant in the USA.
Honestly, they are not big Catholics after the multiple generation issue is concerned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Faith, posted 09-13-2018 6:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 09-13-2018 7:52 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 323 of 353 (839724)
09-13-2018 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Faith
09-13-2018 7:52 PM


Vatican 2 means what in this discussion?
There were major doctrinal changes when it came to who is and isn't going to hell.
Jews, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox weren't hell bound, right? (post Vatican II)
I heard that it was because the old school Catholicism was really unpopular, and THE Roman Catholic Church was in danger of a collapse in membership numbers.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Faith, posted 09-13-2018 7:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Faith, posted 09-14-2018 1:53 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 339 of 353 (848467)
02-06-2019 1:22 AM


Trump recently admitted he isn't trying to deport the 10 million illegals.
Ann Coulter said he is going for "amnesty", though her only evidence was that he was considering giving Democrats a deal for the 700,000 Dreamers (there are another 1.1 million undocumented children that weren't part of DACA)the Democrats keep harping about (Democrats apparently threw under the bus the 10 million ADULT undocumented/illegal immigrants a good while back)
Trump (absent any Democratic suggestions!) unilaterally brought up the possibility of amnesty for all the illegals.
quote:
"Trump proposes amnesty," tweeted conservative firebrand Ann Coulter. "We voted for Trump and got Jeb!" she said, in a reference to Trump's 2016 rival, Jeb Bush.
Trump objected.
"No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer," he tweeted. Still, he said he would be open to using "amnesty" on "a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else." Many, including Pence, have defined the word "amnesty" as permanent status or a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally."Trump proposes amnesty," tweeted conservative firebrand Ann Coulter. "We voted for Trump and got Jeb!" she said, in a reference to Trump's 2016 rival, Jeb Bush.
Shutdown day 30: Democrats aren't buying Trump's 'compromise' | wkyc.com
Here was his Tweet
quote:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3 year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!
95K
7:23 AM - Jan 20, 2019
The fact is that this whole "Border Wall" issue is an argument about something that has already existed for decades. The argument is about whether to call it a "fence" or a "wall".
Trump, thankfully, isn't making a lot of noise about the nuclear policy (to illegal immigrants) of E VERIFY, which would run most illegal immigrants out of the country.
86% of Americans support "self deportation" policies that prevent illegal immigrants from being hired.
quote:
Next, as you may know, the government is considering issuing new tamper-proof Social Security cards as a way for people to prove they are eligible to work in the United States. Would you favor or oppose requiring people to show this card in order to get a job in the U.S.?
Immigration | Gallup Historical Trends
Trump did say "we need to leave borders behind" in 2013.
Trump might have jumped into the presidential race to help turn public opinion IN FAVOR of immigration rights.
He has done very little to stop people from coming to the country using a visitation VISA. As long as he does not promote "self deportation" policies, like placing big penalties on employers who hire illegals, and using technology to catch workers (and their employers), then those who visit can still get work.
The big phoney "wall" fight, by Trump, might be a stealth pro-immigration tactic. Keep attention away from the policies that would surely cause mass (self) deportations.
Trump seems to be trying to get Democrats to ask for amnesty for the 10-11 million illegals (who they have thrown under the bus and sold out) in exchange for "the wall"? I suspected as much, back in the campaign, as my 2016 posts here can attest to.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 340 of 353 (848563)
02-10-2019 12:11 AM


Why do some on the pro-immigration side risk waking up sleeping dragons?
Esther Cepeda made this big mistake: reminding (actually alerting the ignorant) folks that illegal immigrants can only exist due to (relatively) weak laws against employers who hire them.
The article starts by attacking Trump, then the slide into dangerous territory (alerting the American people of the actual issue).
quote:
Esther Cepeda: Immigration laws punish wrong people
ESTHER CEPEDA Washington Post 22 hrs ago
In my mind, the defining moment of Donald Trump's presidency happened well before he clinched the White House.
It was in January 2016. He showed his true colors when he said, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible."
Such bluster could only come from someone who understood that the same people who would accept the recklessness of his comments would also accept the carelessness of his actions. That's why there's been no outrage from Trump's base about reports that his organization had hired immigrants who are unauthorized to live or work in the United States.
Trump's company has fired at least 18 undocumented workers at five golf courses in New York and New Jersey in the past two months, according to The Washington Post.
The story that Trump had hired illegal workers in the first place was broken by The New York Times, which described the ongoing display of hypocrisy as "an embarrassment for the Trump Organization, coming to light as Mr. Trump has railed against illegal immigration, blamed undocumented immigrants for crime and pledged to build a wall along the Mexican border to keep more people from entering the country unlawfully."
https://journalstar.com/...-28cc-5655-9963-af6458c97a04.html
The meat of the (dangerous) article follows.
I will skip to the end.
(Employer "abuses", that is "false documents" & "false papers" being involved in the hiring process, are condemned by Cepeda)
quote:
The sad truth is that these types of dysfunctional employer-employee relationships are common. The powerful employers use up labor as though it is not only cheap but disposable. That's because so many people are waiting and willing to take up the slack after yet another worker has been used up and thrown away.
Oh, and because it's literally written into our immigration laws.
"Before the 1980s, there were no laws about hiring [legal or unauthorized] immigrants; it was only after the [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986] amnesty that employers had limits on who they could hire," said Muzaffar Chishti, a lawyer and the director of the Migration Policy Institute's office at the New York University School of Law.
"But everyone knew that there was a loophole big enough to drive a truck through: Congress could only sanction employers if they knowingly hired undocumented immigrants. So as long as the employee presents papers and the employer checks them to see if they look facially valid, then it's fine, because the employer will have deniability. It's a gross violation [of the law], with paper compliance."
Chishti said that the farce is a two-way street, because immigrants who want to work -- even at the risk of being underpaid, mistreated, put in danger or otherwise exploited -- accept the terms of this devil's bargain.
Indeed, no one -- not even immigrant advocacy organizations -- is keen to put teeth into the law. Such organizations have long complained that tools such as the federal E-Verify system run on flawed information that could misidentify legal workers. Ultimately, the detente keeps about 7 million of the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. gainfully employed, according to Chishti.
Still, the law against employers hiring undocumented workers is really a sanction against the workers, because when the heat is on, it's the immigrant workers -- like those who were employed on Trump properties -- whose lives are upended.
"But if the businesses are fined a couple of thousand dollars for hiring undocumented workers, that amounts to a slap on the wrist ... it's practically figured in to the cost of doing business," Chishti told me.
One might be indignant -- scandalized even -- when thinking about that in the context of a billionaire's luxury property.
But the hiring of unauthorized workers happens every day in the plants where our meat and poultry are processed, in the factories that make our cheap off-the-rack clothing and in the millions of homes where immigrant laborers toil behind closed doors to care for children, the elderly and the infirm.
Perhaps we have met the enemy of reforming employment-related immigration laws -- and it is us.
The employer fine is not big enough, huh?
Next, do we need tougher documents to fake?
So is Cepeda going to complain that the government isn't using technology to compile a database of illegal immigrants?
(I won't ask about what the "solution" is to the "problem" of illegal individuals)
(EDIT: Mitt Romney said that depriving immigrants of work will cause them to "self deport" due to the simple human-misery factor. No significant I.C.E. raids necessary.)
Why complain about a "wall" (OR "The Wall") when the far more draconian type of stuff is strongly suggested by Cepeda's article?
The population is ignorant and I think it is better if it stays that way.
Shut up Esther!
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 342 of 353 (849565)
03-14-2019 11:42 PM


Why do Democrats use loaded & prejudiced words when referring to immigration?
Examples:
"We don't NEED The Wall"
"The Wall isn't a good way to solve the PROBLEM"
"There are better ways to solve the PROBLEM"
These words reflect some person brainwashed by society against foreigners.
As if there is a NEED to stop foreigners from coming.
As if immigrants are, at best, an ecological nuisance (probably these loaded comments, above, imply something far worse than an excessive environmental threat).
I am saying Democrats, while not so explicit in their (I am calling a spade a spade) bigotry, are so conditioned toward an anti-immigration mindset, that they cannot begin to be able to look at immigrants as a genuinely good thing.
The scary thing is that Democrats don't even see their words as - even - implicitly racist.
(The feeling, among Democrats, seems to be that immigrants should see Democrats as kindly defending the "unworthy refuse" simply as a charitable gesture, and charity requires nothing more than something slightly better than what the "wretched" of the earth typically get. The poor migrants get awful treatment, generally, so that means "almost awful" should be sweet treats for the miserable. Democrats only need to be noticed, by immigrants, as not-as-bad as Republicans, so the riding on the back of moral relativism carries the day, every day, for the "blue" party.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2019 8:45 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 344 of 353 (849645)
03-16-2019 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by AZPaul3
03-15-2019 8:45 PM


Re: Why do Democrats use loaded & prejudiced words when referring to immigration?
Democrats make no arguments which demonstrate the fact the immigrants help us.
Democrats are just attempting to make themselves sound like paradigms of mercy and charity.
I see little evidence that Democrats are attempting to defeat the anti-immigrant mindset in the country.
I feel that immigrants help create more jobs NET.
I feel that immigrants help the towns stay alive.
I feel that immigrants help the fiscal budget situation of cities, towns, states, and the federal government.
But if Democrats won't make the case (for those who can't vote) then they SHOULD at least have a policy that takes some powerful (but untrue) anti-immigration arguments OFF THE TABLE.
The best thing to do to help take anti-immigration arguments off the table would be to have (as an idea) a flat 5% income tax on all immigrants, so there won't be a fiscal & tax argument available to the anti-immigration side.
KILL some of the most powerful arguments that prevent Open Border type policies.
Democrats need to make the case for Open Borders, and must significantly increase legal immigration levels while making the necessary case. It is possible for an honest & sincere Democratic candidate to tell the people that Open Borders is a desirable destination for the country's policy-makers to travel toward. Simply tell the people the truth, and promise not to (even begin to attempt to) implement a "soft border" policy until reputable polls consistently demonstrate 50% support.
(It is not like a soft border can be snuck in anyway. There would obviously be lots of deliberation)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by AZPaul3, posted 03-15-2019 8:45 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 03-17-2019 8:26 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 346 of 353 (849681)
03-17-2019 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Phat
03-17-2019 8:26 AM


Re: Immigrants, Populists & Unionism
I want to thank you, Phat, for the open mind you constantly display on immigration issues.
I wish we could find some safeguards to put in place, to make higher immigration rates possible.
Democrats have yet to demonstrate any real efforts.
(There is a job training provision in place for an employee, who is part of a large group of workers, employed in a business, who loses his job due to trade deals. The bar is unfortunately set a bit too high, and I forget the exact details.)
I am glad that we have one union member here that is not anti-immigration. Democrats need to make the number much higher, and the lack of support for Open Borders, among Union folk, might actually be an issue where those at the top (Democrats in Congress, Senate, DNC etc.) are to blame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Phat, posted 03-17-2019 8:26 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 347 of 353 (849682)
03-17-2019 5:20 PM


My 5% tax, on (future?) immigrants, was in addition to regular taxes.
My tax is not an idea which indicates a belief (on my part) that immigrants don't already cover their fair share of taxes.
It is just a necessary trade-off to enable higher immigration levels per year.
It is about political feasibility.
(And it would give the entire country a chance to look at the benefits of immigration with a renewed focus and clearer eye)

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 348 of 353 (850224)
04-03-2019 10:44 PM


Here is a dramatic AP article. I feel it can be interpreted multiple ways.
First, people need to go to the link.
(click on the Patch website link, at bottom of my AP article paste, to see the graph showing border arrests per year from 2000 to 2018, which is impressive enough. But also see the graph showing the number of border patrol officers from the same years. This graph deserves its own topic. Wow.)
quote:
Politics & Government
'Catch And Release' Expands Amid Surge In Migrants
Since Dec. 21, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has set free more than 125,000 people who came into the U.S. as families.
By Associated Press, News Partner | Apr 2, 2019 6:07 pm ET
EL PASO, TX ” The surge of migrant families arriving at the southern border has led the Trump administration to dramatically expand a practice President Donald Trump has long mocked as "catch and release."
With immigrant processing and holding centers overwhelmed, the administration is busing people hundreds of miles inland and releasing them at Greyhound stations and churches in cities like Albuquerque, San Antonio and Phoenix because towns close to the border already have more than they can handle.
Relief organizations in some cities are struggling to feed and house the migrants and warning that a public health crisis is taking shape.
"We're asking volunteer doctors and nurses and community members to step up and do what the government should be doing. If this was a hurricane, FEMA would be on the ground helping," said Jim Gannon, CEO and executive director of Catholic Charities in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
For many years, families arriving at the border were typically released from U.S. custody immediately and allowed to settle in this country with family or friends while their cases wound their way through the courts, a process that often takes years.
Trump has railed against the practice, tweeting in November that it was over: "Catch and Release is an obsolete term. It is now Catch and Detain. Illegal Immigrants trying to come into the U.S.A., often proudly flying the flag of their nation as they ask for U.S. Asylum, will be detained or turned away."
But in recent months, the number of families crossing into the U.S. has climbed to record highs, pushing the system to the breaking point. As a result, the government is releasing families faster, in greater numbers and at points farther removed from the border.
Since Dec. 21, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has set free more than 125,000 people who came into the U.S. as families.
Customs and Border Protection is also overloaded, and instead of holding families for up to 72 hours before turning them over to ICE, it has started releasing them directly into the U.S.
"The numbers are overwhelming right now," said Gregory Archambault, ICE director of enforcement and removal operations in San Diego. "Everybody is stressed. The agency is stressed, the (local governments) are stressed, the law enforcement agencies. Everybody is stressed because there are these mass numbers of people."
ICE has been releasing asylum-seeking families so quickly that they don't even have time to make travel arrangements. Families are given court dates, a head of household is often fitted with an ankle monitor, and they are dropped off at a charity-run shelter or bus station.
San Antonio received part of that surge in recent days, forcing the city to open a help center with food for migrants.
In El Paso, where shelters and churches are at capacity and seats on buses headed out of the city are getting harder to find, authorities briefly resorted to holding migrants in a pen lined with concertina wire under the shade of a bridge that connects the American city to Juarez, Mexico.
They closed the makeshift holding area over the weekend and moved the migrants to a place with more shelter.
"We spent four days under the bridge, sleeping on the rocks," said Eliseo Santiago, 37, who is from Guatemala.
"They treated us like animals," said Herling Jerlyn, a teenager from Guatemala.
In Albuquerque, nearly 280 miles from the border, faith-based organizations have helped roughly 1,000 migrants since mid-February. The groups were small at first, but they have been growing and the arrivals have become more frequent.
San Diego County recently opened a shuttered downtown courthouse slated for demolition to house up to 150 asylum seekers. A coalition of religious and civic groups that manages the shelter said it has helped more than 11,000 members of asylum-seeking families since authorities began large-scale releases in late October.
About 22,000 immigrants have been released in Arizona in the past three months. In the Phoenix area, the nonprofit organizations and churches taking them in have a capacity of only 700 a week, said Connie Phillips, president and CEO of Lutheran Social Services in the Southwest.
That means immigration authorities have to drop off families by the busload at places not designed to take them in, like the Greyhound station in Phoenix.
The bus company is no longer allowing anyone without a ticket to wait inside, so immigrant families, including little children, stand outside until a volunteer can get them in touch with a relative to buy them a ticket. That sometimes takes hours.
"The federal government is saying, 'This is not our responsibility,'" Phillips said. "And the cities and states have not stepped up to provide any kind of emergency funding."
She added: "This is going to be a public health disaster. These are small children, these are families, these are babies, and we cannot have people just out in the heat."
Authorities said family arrivals along the U.S.-Mexico border reached an all-time high in February of 45,827 arrests or denials of entry.
"We didn't have family groups for years and years, like we have now," ICE's Archambault said. "Our facilities are not made for this. We have diapers and baby formula and all this stuff, like a nursery."
In another sign of how U.S. authorities are being tested as rarely before, figures released Tuesday show a significant drop in prosecutions for illegal entry, even as arrests have climbed sharply. The numbers are at odds with Trump's vow to prosecute everyone who enters the country illegally.
In February, Customs and Border Protection referred 8,998 illegal-entry cases to prosecutors along the border, a drop of 12% from January and 23% from October, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
Border Patrol arrests of single adults are moving in the opposite direction: 23,451 in February, up 26% from January and 7% from October.
By Cedar Attanasio and Astrid Galvin, Associated Press; Galvan reported from Phoenix; AP writers Elliot Spagat in San Diego; Nomaan Merchant in Houston; Colleen Long in Washington; and Susan Montoya Bryan in Albuquerque, New Mexico, contributed to this story.
'Catch And Release' Expands Amid Surge In Migrants | White House, US Patch
I would see this as chaos caused by artificial borders, which are a man-made strangulation that causes unexpected surges at times. The pressure has been caused by a choking border.
Opponents of open borders will say that an actual open border would have surges as well (only more often and worse).
I would respond that shelters would not cost too much (for this number of people especially), and much (if not all) of the "crisis" is simply from hatred of "welfare".

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 349 of 353 (850225)
04-03-2019 11:00 PM


"Catch and Release" gets to the issue of refugees.
See this long article showing the complications with Trump's idea from the get-go.
Catch and release, explained: Trump’s new border agenda is about tightening the screws on immigrants entering the US - Vox

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 351 of 353 (861143)
08-18-2019 12:42 AM


A suppressed report showing refugees brought financial benefits to the USA?
quote:
In effect, he is advancing the bogus premise that immigrants are freeloaders and connecting people of color to welfare. Actually, the libertarian Cato Institute found last year that immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-born Americans.
But that won’t register with a president who recently suppressed a report which found that refugees brought in $63 billion more in revenue over the past decade than they cost.
In Trump’s world, their fate will now rest with a DHS bureaucrat who weighs the totality of the alien’s circumstances, with greater emphasis on that individual’s financial security. The rule itself notes that this assessment is inherently subjective and discretionary in nature. No kidding.
Trump declares war on Emma Lazarus | Editorial - nj.com
A September 18 2017 New York Times article was hyperlinked.
$63 billion more,not less, it seems.
So much for the big refugee cost.

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by dwise1, posted 08-18-2019 1:14 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024