Despite how I feel about Mayor Rahm, I appreciate what he said about the president's "We're going to send all the immigrants to the Sanctuary cities!" Rahm was like, "Ok!"
Despite how I feel about Mayor Rahm, I appreciate what he said about the president's "We're going to send all the immigrants to the Sanctuary cities!" Rahm was like, "Ok!"
You use this false strawman as a standard defense when the issues of racism or children being separated from their families is brought up even though the factcheck clearly states that only a small minority of non-leadership members of the Democratic party have even brought it up -- just like your "slippery slope" nonsense about why Congress shouldn't see the Mueller Report when you know we deserve to know the truth about Russian interference in our election.
Just like you use "immigration limits" as an excuse to claim Democrats are for "open borders" when you know that's a lie as well -- they are dishonest arguments based on misleading rhetoric rather than actual factual proof as I cited when pointing out issues within the Republican party.
You'll do anything but just admit the truth about your lying, corrupt, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, warmongering, fiscally irresponsible party: you can't defend them on their record so -- just like Trump -- you have to exaggerate and make things up about "Democrats" ("open borders", "abolish ICE") to try to shift the argument away from the truth about the Republican party.
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 10:19 AM.
The question I have is does there need to be a limiting principle? After all, the process to get into the country is slow, be it through seeking asylum or seeking to immigrate for other, less urgent reasons. Reforming the process will only make these things faster, but still lengthy. What would be wrong with saying we let people in as fast as we can process them? I don’t understand how racist quotas about how much we can take from individual countries is any better than that. I understand we’re tryinf to justify racist immigration policies that have been staples of this franchise of American politics for a long while but it isn’t justified. We can’t continue to state that there are certain TYPES of people we don’t want. Should we apply additional scrutiny to hotbeds? Sure. But it has to be only additional scrutiny—not quota systems. I would like to see people actually defend these proposals instead of asking people demanding fair practice to justify their stance. It is high past time people that preach for unjust, unfair, and immoral policies are on the defensive about them. Just because it is the status quo doesn’t mean that it is justifiable out of hand.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The term for an immigration system without a limiting principle is called open borders. There are intelligent people making that argument.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/o...migration.html
https://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/613590...iew-gdp-double
I can debate the merits of it, and have given thoughts on it in the past. My point isn't about that, as much as it is the Democratic party's expressed position on limits to legal immigration.
There are plenty of arguments that nuclear power has gotten significantly safer over the last few generations.
https://www.wired.com/story/next-gen-nuclear/
https://theconversation.com/nuclear-...eres-why-62207
But if climate change were an existential threat, nuclear power would be a tremendous boon to mankind even if it were guarantee that fifty million people an year would die terribly.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
I think it is a little irresponsible to use the term “open borders” to describe a policy that already has a limiting mechanism. I mean, we could provide a principle but that seems counterproductive to our value system. If the effect is not so different from a policy with a principle as it is without it, it ends up being a difference without a distinction. When people think of “open borders”, they see a policy without any limit, either mechanical or otherwise. To say that a policy that simply doesn’t put down quotas is equal to the policy that has no limit seems to be irresponsible framing of the debate.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yet no one in a position of Democratic leadership is calling for that and in fact, past Democratic administrations have called for, and enacted, stronger border security -- even if your argument had any validity whatsoever, it would be much more objective and fact-based to judge the Democratic party on their past record under Obama and Clinton than what a small number of Democrats might have said or done in passing.
Republicans talk all the time about lowering deficits, yet anyone who knows anything about them knows to judge them by actions rather than words.
It's a false argument, Mets -- you're trying to frame the discussion on your own terms using a false "strawman" position as a counterpoint to defend your own support of an administration that believes separating families and violating the law is the best way to deal with a fake immigration "emergency" created to stir up the racists in the Republican base.
If Republicans cared that much about immigration reform they would have focused on that instead of increasing our deficit to record amounts by giving the wealthy another tax cut -- but it makes too convenient a talking point to give up, especially when it distracts from issues like Republican corruption, which you keep trying to avoid discussing so that you won't have to explain why you continue to support a lying, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, fiscally irresponsible political party even in the face of all reason.
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 12:02 PM.
But, according to Mets’ definition, those actions aren’t principles. It isn’t enough to have immigration be limited through border security and lawful process. Unless you have racist quotas, there isn’t a limiting principle. Which is precisely what I was saying—there is no need for such a principle. These actions are limits unto themselves. The process of immigration takes time and needs no principle to extend how long it takes to reach a certain number of immigrants.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
All of which flies in the face of the link I posted that shows we could use more immigration, not less -- solely to appeal to a racist base for votes.
-----
"[Studies] found that even though foreign-born people make up about 13% of the US population, immigrant entrepreneurs create some 25% of new companies, and that number continues to rise. In some states, that percentage is even higher, with immigrant “gateways” such as New York and California seeing more than 40% of new businesses led by immigrants.
The study also found that immigrant-led companies start smaller but grow at a faster rate and are more likely to survive long term.
“Immigrants as a group can have a dynamic effect on an economy,” says Kerr, adding that the phenomenon cuts across industries, with lower-skilled immigrants opening up dry cleaning businesses, restaurants, and autobody shops, and higher-skilled immigrants launching tech firms."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswork...-the-job-done/
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 12:15 PM.
Oh certainly. As I said before, our economy relies on perpetual growth. Without a growing population to yield that growth, we rely merely on technological advancements. Those come quick but they are hardly enough on their own to yield the kind of growth people like Donald Trump insist we need. Only by understanding how counter-intuitive a limited immigration policy is can we avoid having to change the culture of capitalism where anything short of massive gains in growth are perceived as a failure. We need to grow the population somehow. People aren’t having kids. The natural solution, then, is immigration—and letting drug offenders go for the sin of using drugs.
With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Arguing in circles with Mets actually made me a supporter of open borders. I realized it would be easier to change my mind than his. *sigh*
Anyway, the guy who draws the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal webcomic just wrote a book about open borders.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/open-borders
I haven't read it, but if you can't trust a random webcartoonist who can you trust.
I don't even want him to support "open borders" -- just wanted to point out that he's being dishonest when he tries to frame the argument as "open borders" vs "children in cages" in order to defend his party despite my producing a factcheck that proves that the Democratic party supports neither "open borders" or "abolishing ICE".
It's the same argument he offered last time while producing no factual evidence to back up his accusations -- just questions to deflect from his own party's behavior as if people can't see through the lies, especially when they are just echoes of Trump's lies.
-----
"The Democrats want to have no borders. They want to get rid of ICE. … Between Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, and getting rid of ICE, and having open borders — and the biggest thing, you have open borders. All it’s going to do is lead to massive, massive crime. That’s going to be their platform, open borders, which equals crime." -- Donald Trump
"Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies. None has called for abandoning border enforcement."
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/
Last edited by aja_christopher; 04-14-2019 at 01:50 PM.
I'll notice that you're evading the questions. Have Democrats expressed any opinion on a limiting principle on legal immigration (an upper limit on the number of immigrants who should be allowed in)? If so, what is it? If not, what should we infer from the silence, and why should we infer that?
He's working with Bryan Caplan, whose work on Open Borders I've linked to.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets