Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

I don't have the hard figures on hand, there were some studies on it a few years ago when FedGov was discussing overhauling immigration services, they came up with some totals that were completely insane, like a two-six year backlog or something.  As far as the 'purge' option, it's cheaper, and by a decent amount, but still stupidly infeasible.

Egan: I don't have to like it.  That's how this country functions, rule by majority (with some proportionality).  I am however allowed to voice my opinion on the matter and try to get people looking for better options.  Doesn't mean that they'll happen.

[smjjames]

So basically, there only seems to be one actually-kinda-doable solution that anyone in this thread can think of, but NullForce doesn't like it.
And no, kicking them all out isn't an option. That just seems altogether likely to fail horribly.

You mean amnesty, but that's effectively dealing with the symptom instead of the disease. We'll just end up having to do amnesty again some 30 years later.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I doubt the costs of the purge nor the dividends of the amnesty consider the externalities caused by those actions. Separated incomes, lost jobs and properties, fluctuations caused by effective depopulation of some areas...that adds up. A lot.

...annnnnd as long as policy is determined by profit motive, none of us can really complain about being treated as disposable cogs.

[smjjames]

I don't have the hard figures on hand, there were some studies on it a few years ago when FedGov was discussing overhauling immigration services, they came up with some totals that were completely insane, like a two-six year backlog or something.  As far as the 'purge' option, it's cheaper, and by a decent amount, but still stupidly infeasible.

Egan: I don't have to like it.  That's how this country functions, rule by majority (with some proportionality).  I am however allowed to voice my opinion on the matter and try to get people looking for better options.  Doesn't mean that they'll happen.

Also, we've tried the purge option before, the unfortunately named, Operation Wetback in the 50's. Which really didn't go all that well, from what I've read of it. Any positive from it appears dubious at best.

[Egan_BW]

So basically, there only seems to be one actually-kinda-doable solution that anyone in this thread can think of, but NullForce doesn't like it.
And no, kicking them all out isn't an option. That just seems altogether likely to fail horribly.

You mean amnesty, but that's effectively dealing with the symptom instead of the disease. We'll just end up having to do amnesty again some 30 years later.

That's cool, you're right, and I happen to have a response to it already!

Even if we did a perfect overhaul of legal immigration that solved all if its problems, we would still have the illegal immigrants who are here now. Sometimes treating the underlying cause isn't enough to make the symptoms go away. You need to deal with both. Thankfully, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive here.
Unthankfully, we probably won't get a solution to any problems at all out of the current government. I wouldn't actually mind being proven wrong about this, congress.

[misko27]

Eventually South America will solve itself or run out of people, and then we'll be fine. Maybe we could just empower Brazil, or something, so that Migrants have a new target? Hell maybe we can just make Mexico nice, so that migrants will come to play a game of "Bypass the Border Patrol", stay because of Taco trucks on every corner.

Speaking seriously, it's true that I regard immigration in general as a net positive, but if we really want to be comprehensive, fixing some shit south of the border is probably a good idea. Mexico in particular, since everything going on there affects our immigration issues and policies; both in the general sense of being a source for migrants, but even more immediately in the sense of being the border. Curtailing the cartels could do more to strengthen the US border than a wall ever could.

Also, to discuss not-immigration a little bit (I see the title was changed, but no one posted any article or anything) there's a major update on our regular fiscal crisis: Trump has decided to back the Democrat's proposal, which will tie Harvey aid to a three-month extension of the debt ceiling. It sets up another cliff in three months. Republicans wanted a longer extension, like six or 18 months, but after the Democrats rejected them Trump backed "Chuck and Nancy's" plan. The Republican leadership is not happy. It seems like an unexpected turn of events.

[Lord Shonus]

Speaking seriously, it's true that I regard immigration in general as a net positive, but if we really want to be comprehensive, fixing some shit south of the border is probably a good idea. Mexico in particular, since everything going on there affects our immigration issues and policies; both in the general sense of being a source for migrants, but even more immediately in the sense of being the border. Curtailing the cartels could do more to strengthen the US border than a wall ever could.

The problem with that is that Mexico is a sovereign nation. The US could cut off some income to the drug cartels via legalization (probably would hurt, but they sell to many drugs that nobody sane wants legalized for it to be fatal), and that's about it. Trying to strike at the cartels directly would be a military action on the soil of a foreign power, better known as an act of war. Funneling aid money into the country will just cause that money to get sucked into the same black holes that are already sucking up cash via corruption. The ability of the US to fix any of Mexico's underlying problems is very, very small.

[smjjames]

Eventually South America will solve itself or run out of people, and then we'll be fine. Maybe we could just empower Brazil, or something, so that Migrants have a new target? Hell maybe we can just make Mexico nice, so that migrants will come to play a game of "Bypass the Border Patrol", stay because of Taco trucks on every corner.

Speaking seriously, it's true that I regard immigration in general as a net positive, but if we really want to be comprehensive, fixing some shit south of the border is probably a good idea. Mexico in particular, since everything going on there affects our immigration issues and policies; both in the general sense of being a source for migrants, but even more immediately in the sense of being the border. Curtailing the cartels could do more to strengthen the US border than a wall ever could.

Also, to discuss not-immigration a little bit (I see the title was changed, but no one posted any article or anything) there's a major update on our regular fiscal crisis: Trump has decided to back the Democrat's proposal, which will tie Harvey aid to a three-month extension of the debt ceiling. It sets up another cliff in three months. Republicans wanted a longer extension, like six or 18 months, but after the Democrats rejected them Trump backed "Chuck and Nancy's" plan. The Republican leadership is not happy. It seems like an unexpected turn of events.

I did post links earlier at the time I changed the title, but it ended up getting lost between the discussion on Clinton and the discussion on immigration. Plus, it hasn't actually happened yet I don't think.

[Starver]

Has anybody ever run simulations on whether a nuke would actually stop a hurricane? Let alone one as big as Irma?

Because this is Murrica, the NOAA actually has a page on this.

I was already preparing to reply with that. You just supplanted my prepared paste buffer.

If nobody has mentioned the place I heard about it yet (beyond this page of thread that I am replying from), I take great pleasure in mentioning this and likely introducing more people to the what-if phenomenon.

[Max™]

We started accidentally building an empire back in the early 1900's and then kinda quietly altered definitions and shit so we "only" have the 50 states and then a bunch of other shit that even people living here have no clue what or where it is, I think a hegemony is as much as the US mindset looks eager to support.

No, Trump was better than her at campaigning by a mile.

Trump promised to smash a system which contains massive wealth inequality that even the most sheltered echo-chamber-residing wingnut has trouble ignoring.

When shit is bad for the middle class and you get one person saying it isn't that bad and we can make it better, while the other is saying "yeah shit sucks for ya'll, we should fuck it all up" then apparently it was sufficient to get people voting for a big fat spoiled bitchboy because hey, sure it's obvious he's lying, but her emails?

[Funk]

Mexico in particular, since everything going on there affects our immigration issues and policies; both in the general sense of being a source for migrants, but even more immediately in the sense of being the border. Curtailing the cartels could do more to strengthen the US border than a wall ever could.

Realy if mexico was better why whould half of them come?
ages that the anwser mexacio pays crap,  $4 PER DAY ! ( in purchasing power parity just 0.96 per hour , god dam  Mozambique, India and Afghanistan pay more)
While no one can end imagration the massive disparty of Mexico vs working ilegaly in the US is a massive ecomic draw that should of been fixed years ago.
$5.15 to $11 per hour should of been avarged with $4 per day and made the $4 much higher, just to $3 or $4 per hour for working legaly in mexico would of limited much of economic drivers to northwards migration.

Of couse we pay $9.36 per hour in the uk vs $3.88 per hour in poland so can you argue that you do diffent if the sum's where the other way?
I can't but you show me where i can earn $28 per hour minium...
 
(WTF is up with tips and the $2.13 per hour? we pay Apprentices more the that($4.37) and there often robbed next to the minimum wage($5.05./ $9.36 for those aged 25+) really it shemss to be a scumy way to rob the gifts from doing good serivce in replacemcet to paying proper wages ($5.15 per hour for Wyoming and Georgia).

[redwallzyl]

Mexico in particular, since everything going on there affects our immigration issues and policies; both in the general sense of being a source for migrants, but even more immediately in the sense of being the border. Curtailing the cartels could do more to strengthen the US border than a wall ever could.

Realy if mexico was better why whould half of them come?
ages that the anwser mexacio pays crap,  $4 PER DAY ! ( in purchasing power parity just 0.96 per hour , god dam  Mozambique, India and Afghanistan pay more)
While no one can end imagration the massive disparty of Mexico vs working ilegaly in the US is a massive ecomic draw that should of been fixed years ago.
$5.15 to $11 per hour should of been avarged with $4 per day and made the $4 much higher, just to $3 or $4 per hour for working legaly in mexico would of limited much of economic drivers to northwards migration.

Of couse we pay $9.36 per hour in the uk vs $3.88 per hour in poland so can you argue that you do diffent if the sum's where the other way?
I can't but you show me where i can earn $28 per hour minium...
 
(WTF is up with tips and the $2.13 per hour? we pay Apprentices more the that($4.37) and there often robbed next to the minimum wage($5.05./ $9.36 for those aged 25+) really it shemss to be a scumy way to rob the gifts from doing good serivce in replacemcet to paying proper wages ($5.15 per hour for Wyoming and Georgia).

So we need some kind of way to improve their economy so there is less disparity. Something like say NAFTA and investment to shift high paying jobs there...

[smjjames]

Mexico in particular, since everything going on there affects our immigration issues and policies; both in the general sense of being a source for migrants, but even more immediately in the sense of being the border. Curtailing the cartels could do more to strengthen the US border than a wall ever could.

Realy if mexico was better why whould half of them come?
ages that the anwser mexacio pays crap,  $4 PER DAY ! ( in purchasing power parity just 0.96 per hour , god dam  Mozambique, India and Afghanistan pay more)
While no one can end imagration the massive disparty of Mexico vs working ilegaly in the US is a massive ecomic draw that should of been fixed years ago.
$5.15 to $11 per hour should of been avarged with $4 per day and made the $4 much higher, just to $3 or $4 per hour for working legaly in mexico would of limited much of economic drivers to northwards migration.

Of couse we pay $9.36 per hour in the uk vs $3.88 per hour in poland so can you argue that you do diffent if the sum's where the other way?
I can't but you show me where i can earn $28 per hour minium...
 
(WTF is up with tips and the $2.13 per hour? we pay Apprentices more the that($4.37) and there often robbed next to the minimum wage($5.05./ $9.36 for those aged 25+) really it shemss to be a scumy way to rob the gifts from doing good serivce in replacemcet to paying proper wages ($5.15 per hour for Wyoming and Georgia).

So we need some kind of way to improve their economy so there is less disparity. Something like say NAFTA and investment to shift high paying jobs there...

Except Trump wants to give Mexico the shaft as far as NAFTA goes.

They also have a massive corruption problem, which doesn't help either.

[Reelya]

I think that was the exact issue that redwallzyl was implying. Trump's take on both NAFTA and not wanting factories in Mexico.

[Zangi]

Alternatively, we could end illegal Mexican immigration forever by annexing Mexico. That's only slightly less feasible than mass deportation, and probably more humane.

I'd like to point out that most border hopping immigrants do not come from Mexico.  It is further south ya gotta look.


And for reference, USCIS, that shit took at least 3 years for my sister's husband to get approved.  The backlog is yuge I tell ya,  Yuge. 
And there is a yearly quota also.  Maybe if you fix those two...   You'd get less border hopping.