Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

US Immigration Policy

ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 10:38:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is an excellent article taking down all the Republican arguments on immigration:

http://fivethirtyeight.com...

Trump is mentioned in the title, but I've heard some form of these arguments from most Republican candidates and party leaders.

I wish all politicians had to read the articles in this study before casting a vote on any immigration reform bill.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 11:51:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your source is wrong and over-generalizes:

1) Yes, Trump wants to build a wall on the Southern Border
2) No, Trump does not want them to fully pay for it as is eluded to; instead he wants them to pay (here comes the liberal's favorite phrase....wait for it....) their fair share. Guess that only applies when liberals want more tax dollars from people
3) No, he does NOT want to end birthright citizenship, instead, he wants to end anchor babies; also known as illegal immigrants coming to the U.S., having a baby, and claiming citizenship illegally and by misreading the 14th amendment.
4) OH MY GOD! SOMEBODY CALL THE FACT CHECK POLICE. TRUMP ACTED LIKE A BUSINESSMAN AND EXAGGERATED HIS NUMBERS!!!

What about all the Democrat's lies, cheating, stealing, complete refusal to enforce the law, abide by the law, and protect the constitution? Don't hear you crying about any of that....surprise, surprise.

5) Far fewer illegal immigrants crossing the border than in years past....yeah of course there are...THEY ARE ALL ALREADY HERE FROM THE FIRST TIME OBAMA CLAIMED AMNESTY FOR ALL WHO WOULD BE HERE ILLEGALLY A FEW YEARS AGO. Illegals already jumped ship and got here by the droves. Or did you forget about that whole debacle?

6) It peaked in 2007? Really? Come on man. Nobody can be stupid enough to believe that. Oh and look at the same old generic "Blame Bush" tactic subtly employed there as well.

7) Number taken at the border has decreased since 2012. You mean the number of illegal immigrants arrested and deported has dropped after the White House issued an order to law enforcement NOT to enforce our immigration laws? Wow....who would have guessed?

8) I can't take the stupidity any more.....
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:09:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 11:51:03 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

First, learn to read. Then, actually read the article and the cited studies. Finally, if you still want to come back here and make a buffoon of yourself, I'll be more than happy to take you on. But until you actually address the points the article makes, I'm not wasting my time on you.

Have a nice day.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:12:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:09:15 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:51:03 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

First, learn to read. Then, actually read the article and the cited studies. Finally, if you still want to come back here and make a buffoon of yourself, I'll be more than happy to take you on. But until you actually address the points the article makes, I'm not wasting my time on you.

Have a nice day.

I did read the article...gave 7 very factual points in regards to the article then got tired of the garbage being vomited on paper that the author was calling journalism.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:26:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:09:15 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:51:03 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

First, learn to read. Then, actually read the article and the cited studies. Finally, if you still want to come back here and make a buffoon of yourself, I'll be more than happy to take you on. But until you actually address the points the article makes, I'm not wasting my time on you.

Have a nice day.

Let me make it easy for you:

Donald Trump wants to build a wall on the southern border of the United States and get Mexico to pay for it.

1) Yes, Trump wants to build a wall on the Southern Border

2) No, Trump does not want them to fully pay for it as is eluded to; instead he wants them to pay (here comes the liberal's favorite phrase....wait for it....) their fair share. Guess that only applies when liberals want more tax dollars from people

He wants to end birthright citizenship.

3) No, he does NOT want to end birthright citizenship, instead, he wants to end anchor babies; also known as illegal immigrants coming to the U.S., having a baby, and claiming citizenship illegally and by misreading the 14th amendment.

Also like past speeches, the new policy plays fast and loose with the evidence, frequently citing numbers without proper context

4) OH MY GOD! SOMEBODY CALL THE FACT CHECK POLICE. TRUMP ACTED LIKE A BUSINESSMAN AND EXAGGERATED HIS NUMBERS!!!
What about all the Democrat's lies, cheating, stealing, complete refusal to enforce the law, abide by the law, and protect the constitution? Don't hear you crying about any of that....surprise, surprise.

There are far fewer unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. today than in past years

5) Far fewer illegal immigrants crossing the border than in years past....yeah of course there are...THEY ARE ALL ALREADY HERE FROM THE FIRST TIME OBAMA CLAIMED AMNESTY FOR ALL WHO WOULD BE HERE ILLEGALLY A FEW YEARS AGO. Illegals already jumped ship and got here by the droves. Or did you forget about that whole debacle?

That"s down from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007, and basically unchanged since 2009. In other words, there has been essentially no net illegal immigration in recent years

6) It peaked in 2007? Really? Come on man. Nobody can be stupid enough to believe that. Oh and look at the same old generic "Blame Bush" tactic subtly employed there as well.

The number of people taken into custody at the border has decreased since 2012,

7) Number taken at the border has decreased since 2012. You mean the number of illegal immigrants arrested and deported has dropped after the White House issued an order to law enforcement NOT to enforce our immigration laws? Wow....who would have guessed?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go, rewrote it so it has your article's statement followed by my rebuttal. Is that basic enough for you or do you wanna keep making unfounded, fact-aversive claims and personal attacks?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:44:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:26:26 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:09:15 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/20/2015 11:51:03 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:

First, learn to read. Then, actually read the article and the cited studies. Finally, if you still want to come back here and make a buffoon of yourself, I'll be more than happy to take you on. But until you actually address the points the article makes, I'm not wasting my time on you.

Have a nice day.

Let me make it easy for you:

Donald Trump wants to build a wall on the southern border of the United States and get Mexico to pay for it.

1) Yes, Trump wants to build a wall on the Southern Border

2) No, Trump does not want them to fully pay for it as is eluded to; instead he wants them to pay (here comes the liberal's favorite phrase....wait for it....) their fair share. Guess that only applies when liberals want more tax dollars from people

Who pays for the wall is not even remotely the point of the article. It's kind of sad that you read the article and came away thinking this is one of its main criticisms.

He wants to end birthright citizenship.

3) No, he does NOT want to end birthright citizenship, instead, he wants to end anchor babies; also known as illegal immigrants coming to the U.S., having a baby, and claiming citizenship illegally and by misreading the 14th amendment.

Birthright Citizenship: (noun) a legal right to citizenship for all children born in a country's territory, regardless of parentage. So yes, Trump does want to end birthright citizenship.

Also like past speeches, the new policy plays fast and loose with the evidence, frequently citing numbers without proper context

4) OH MY GOD! SOMEBODY CALL THE FACT CHECK POLICE. TRUMP ACTED LIKE A BUSINESSMAN AND EXAGGERATED HIS NUMBERS!!!
What about all the Democrat's lies, cheating, stealing, complete refusal to enforce the law, abide by the law, and protect the constitution? Don't hear you crying about any of that....surprise, surprise.

So you admit that Trump's proposed policy is purposely dishonest, good.

There are far fewer unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. today than in past years

5) Far fewer illegal immigrants crossing the border than in years past....yeah of course there are...THEY ARE ALL ALREADY HERE FROM THE FIRST TIME OBAMA CLAIMED AMNESTY FOR ALL WHO WOULD BE HERE ILLEGALLY A FEW YEARS AGO. Illegals already jumped ship and got here by the droves. Or did you forget about that whole debacle?

You do realize that Central American countries have growing populations, right? So the fact that some immigrants are already here doesn't mean more wouldn't be able to keep coming here. It's pretty ridiculous to think that there can't be any more immigrants because literally all the potential immigrants already came here.

That"s down from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007, and basically unchanged since 2009. In other words, there has been essentially no net illegal immigration in recent years

6) It peaked in 2007? Really? Come on man. Nobody can be stupid enough to believe that. Oh and look at the same old generic "Blame Bush" tactic subtly employed there as well.

Ah, so you must have some rigorously collected data that suggests otherwise? I'll wait while you present it, I'm sure it's quite impressive.

The number of people taken into custody at the border has decreased since 2012,

7) Number taken at the border has decreased since 2012. You mean the number of illegal immigrants arrested and deported has dropped after the White House issued an order to law enforcement NOT to enforce our immigration laws? Wow....who would have guessed?

This is literally the only possibly valid criticism you made. Still doesn't explain the rest of the huge discrepancy between reality and Trump's fantasy world, though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go, rewrote it so it has your article's statement followed by my rebuttal. Is that basic enough for you or do you wanna keep making unfounded, fact-aversive claims and personal attacks?

I think if you read more than the opening paragraph or two, you'd realize what the article is saying. You may not like it, but the studies show immigration is a net positive to our country.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 1:08:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Does anyone seriously think a border wall wall has any other utility besides a symbol to the world that we have finally as a nation decided to enforce our existing laws? I mean seriously, it's not the functionality of a wall that has people scared, it's the idea that we could possibly enforce our existing laws and define what that magical word "jurisdiction" means. Now that is more terrifying than any wall, no matter how high, or how expensive or symbolic.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 8:51:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Wylted is clearly trolling. You are a sad little turd if you actually think putting land mines on our border would be a good idea.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:21:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:51:02 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Wylted is clearly trolling. You are a sad little turd if you actually think putting land mines on our border would be a good idea.

Sad little turds appeal to ridicule. Try again.
jimtimmy8
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:32:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The government is obsessed with covering up the crimes of illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. So, you use garbage figures to "debunk" Trump. In reality, 538 is absolutely full of it and Trump is right.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:38:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 10:38:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:

This is a great article. Thanks for sharing. I made a post yesterday highlighting several studies showing that immigrants a net gain to the U.S. economy through several different channels. I think there's both a moral and economic case for immigration reform, and Trump is merely appealing to the ignorance and racism of the base.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:44:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.

The problem is that we aren't really enforcing existing laws nor are we doing much to actively prevent people from sneaking into this country. If anything, we're encouraging it. I'm not opposed to the use of landmines particularly if they are placed in such a way where those who cross them are knowingly doing so at their own peril. That said, I think the most efficient approach would be cease downsizing our military and instead use those additional resources to set up bases alongside the border as well as use drones to actively monitor the in-between so to speak. That way, we have ourselves a virtual wall.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:10:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 10:38:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Here is an excellent article taking down all the Republican arguments on immigration:

http://fivethirtyeight.com...

Trump is mentioned in the title, but I've heard some form of these arguments from most Republican candidates and party leaders.

I wish all politicians had to read the articles in this study before casting a vote on any immigration reform bill.

I am a republican and I am pro-immigration. There are large parts of the party that are. The libertarian sect is, many in the establishment are, and the conservative American Action Forum think tank opposes the "enforce the laws we have" mantra that we hear all the time. They actually give a scathing rebuttal to that argument here: http://americanactionforum.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:16:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 9:44:46 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.

The problem is that we aren't really enforcing existing laws


OK. Here is a conservative think tank that talks about why that argument is bad. We don't really want to enforce current laws, not with 11 million illegals already here. Our laws need to be reformed to make it eaiser to come here legally, anyway. Immigration is extremely important for our economic growth.

"We examine the budgetary and economic implications of alternative strategies to addressing undocumented immigrants. In particular, we focus on the implications of immediately and fully enforcing current law, and find that it would be fiscally and economically costly. The federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to address the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the United States. In order to remove all undocumented immigrants, each immigrant would have to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported to his or her home country. In turn, this would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers and reduce real GDP by $1.6 trillion." http://americanactionforum.org...

Economic contraction of 1.6 trillion dollars = A LOT. I mean, the economy 16.7 trillion dollars right now. That is a 9% reduction. Do you still want to enforce these laws?

I highly recomment reading the link above as well as other studies they have produced. There are, of course, other research papers you should read from other organizations. But the evidence is pretty clear: immigration is good for the economy. "enforcing current laws" is a terrible idea. We should give amnesty to the people here, close the border (security reasons), but also make it substancially easier to enter this country legally. We need to promote immigration, not scare it away.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:33:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:16:33 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:44:46 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.

The problem is that we aren't really enforcing existing laws


OK. Here is a conservative think tank that talks about why that argument is bad. We don't really want to enforce current laws, not with 11 million illegals already here. Our laws need to be reformed to make it eaiser to come here legally, anyway. Immigration is extremely important for our economic growth.

"We examine the budgetary and economic implications of alternative strategies to addressing undocumented immigrants. In particular, we focus on the implications of immediately and fully enforcing current law, and find that it would be fiscally and economically costly. The federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to address the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the United States. In order to remove all undocumented immigrants, each immigrant would have to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported to his or her home country. In turn, this would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers and reduce real GDP by $1.6 trillion." http://americanactionforum.org...

Economic contraction of 1.6 trillion dollars = A LOT. I mean, the economy 16.7 trillion dollars right now. That is a 9% reduction. Do you still want to enforce these laws?

I highly recomment reading the link above as well as other studies they have produced. There are, of course, other research papers you should read from other organizations. But the evidence is pretty clear: immigration is good for the economy. "enforcing current laws" is a terrible idea. We should give amnesty to the people here, close the border (security reasons), but also make it substancially easier to enter this country legally. We need to promote immigration, not scare it away.

LOGIC? Why use logic when you can use LAND MINES?!?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:38:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:33:46 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:16:33 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:44:46 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.

The problem is that we aren't really enforcing existing laws


OK. Here is a conservative think tank that talks about why that argument is bad. We don't really want to enforce current laws, not with 11 million illegals already here. Our laws need to be reformed to make it eaiser to come here legally, anyway. Immigration is extremely important for our economic growth.

"We examine the budgetary and economic implications of alternative strategies to addressing undocumented immigrants. In particular, we focus on the implications of immediately and fully enforcing current law, and find that it would be fiscally and economically costly. The federal government would have to spend roughly $400 billion to $600 billion to address the 11.2 million undocumented immigrants and prevent future unlawful entry into the United States. In order to remove all undocumented immigrants, each immigrant would have to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported to his or her home country. In turn, this would shrink the labor force by 11 million workers and reduce real GDP by $1.6 trillion." http://americanactionforum.org...

Economic contraction of 1.6 trillion dollars = A LOT. I mean, the economy 16.7 trillion dollars right now. That is a 9% reduction. Do you still want to enforce these laws?

I highly recomment reading the link above as well as other studies they have produced. There are, of course, other research papers you should read from other organizations. But the evidence is pretty clear: immigration is good for the economy. "enforcing current laws" is a terrible idea. We should give amnesty to the people here, close the border (security reasons), but also make it substancially easier to enter this country legally. We need to promote immigration, not scare it away.

LOGIC? Why use logic when you can use LAND MINES?!?

^
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:10:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 9:38:15 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/20/2015 10:38:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:

This is a great article. Thanks for sharing. I made a post yesterday highlighting several studies showing that immigrants a net gain to the U.S. economy through several different channels. I think there's both a moral and economic case for immigration reform, and Trump is merely appealing to the ignorance and racism of the base.

Agreed. Just look at some of the idiots commenting on here...
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 2:17:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:16:33 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:44:46 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.

The problem is that we aren't really enforcing existing laws


OK. Here is a conservative think tank that talks about why that argument is bad.

I think your conservative think tank is suggesting that mass-deporting the 11 million illegals here is too costly. By no means does it present the argument that enforcing said laws against additional illegals is bad. Nor does it present the argument that failure to enforce the law is not what got us into this mess in the first place. Therefore, I assume we're in full agreement that simply enforcing the law will effectively fix our border problems, albeit not as kickass as landmines!

Our laws need to be reformed to make it eaiser to come here legally, anyway.

What specific issues do you have with our citizenship registration laws and what specific proposals do you have to fixing them?

Immigration is extremely important for our economic growth.

I have no problems with immigration. My issue is with illegal immigration. I believe in a law abiding society. I don't believe we should award or encourage people to break the law. I believe we should take our borders very seriously. You don't disagree with any of that, do you?

But the evidence is pretty clear: immigration is good for the economy. "enforcing current laws" is a terrible idea.

I think costs is a legitimate concern. There are a lot of crimes committed that we more or less cannot afford to prosecute due to costs. There are a lot of people we more or less cannot put in prisons due to costs We nonetheless prosecute and punish as much as we reasonably can. We send as many people to prisons as we reasonably can. Thus I find the idea of simply granting mass-amnesty to be unpersuasive and unwise.

We need to promote immigration, not scare it away.

The fact that we've gone from 3 million to 11 million illegal immigrants despite having this exact argument during the previous immigration reform debate is a pretty strong indication that we're not scaring it away by any means.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:48:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 2:17:56 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:16:33 AM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:44:46 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:02:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:57:01 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/21/2015 12:25:05 AM, Wylted wrote:
I read the article later. I know building a wall is stupid and expensive. It would be much cheaper to sporadically place land mines along the border.

Of course, if someone is stupid enough to walk across the land mines and blow themselves up, the news media will spend weeks (if not months) droning on and on about how heartless it is for us to use landmines and that those back the use of them are cold blooded murderers.

Land mines aren't really sufficient, though. We'd also need electric fences, snipers, and, of course, an actual wall. We'd also need a way to let people know immediately whenever they're nearing the border and put up signs warning them of the landmines ahead so that somebody doesn't unwittingly cross the border and stumble onto a minefield.
After the first 100 deaths or so illegal immigration would very nearly come to a halt.

The problem is that we aren't really enforcing existing laws


OK. Here is a conservative think tank that talks about why that argument is bad.

I think your conservative think tank is suggesting that mass-deporting the 11 million illegals here is too costly. By no means does it present the argument that enforcing said laws against additional illegals is bad. Nor does it present the argument that failure to enforce the law is not what got us into this mess in the first place. Therefore, I assume we're in full agreement that simply enforcing the law will effectively fix our border problems, albeit not as kickass as landmines!


Actually enforcing our laws mean we have to institue mass deportation. So, yes, it means enforcing the current laws we have on the books is bad.

Plus, you're assuming immigration is bad in the first place. The evidence in favor of that is pretty weak. Only 11% of economists think we have too much immigration today (http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...). (PDF)

I would not send the current immigrants here back. I would make it easier to become a citizen. I would expand the guest worker program. I would make it easier for immigrants of all colors, skillsets, and whatever come to this country. If it was feasible, I would support open borders. But I think that would be pretty hectic because the government wouldn't be able to track who comes in or out, and that poses a national security issue.

Our laws need to be reformed to make it eaiser to come here legally, anyway.

What specific issues do you have with our citizenship registration laws and what specific proposals do you have to fixing them?

(1) increase the number of high skilled immigrants that enter this country. THe number of immigrants is positivley correlated with the number of patents issued, indicating that immigrants boost innovation.

(2) Expand the guest worker program. A lot. Immigration does a lot of good for this economy.

(3) I would "close the border" for national security reasons. And I don't mean just the south. The North, East, and West, too. But I wouldn't pull an Iron curtian--we would be letting people come and go more than we would today. This would be mostly to prevent foreign operatives and terrorists from entering the country.

I think both legal and illegal immigration benefit the economy, but illegal immigration poses more security problems and provides less good than legal immigration. I would essentially make a system that allows all illegal immigrants to come here legally fairly easily, so they would come here and be easy for the IRS to track down and force them to pay taxes. Making the system easy to become a citizen, and making it large enough to accomodate a lot of people, is essential. We need some restriction, for the security reason mentioned above, but the best way to reduce illegal immigration is to make it easy to come here legally.


Immigration is extremely important for our economic growth.

I have no problems with immigration. My issue is with illegal immigration. I believe in a law abiding society. I don't believe we should award or encourage people to break the law. I believe we should take our borders very seriously. You don't disagree with any of that, do you?

That is a bad argument. Jurry nullification exists because the founding fathers want us to oppose bad laws. If our current immigration laws are bad, immoral, costly, and harm the economy--they are all of those--then we should not be morally obligated to follow them. Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean it should be enforced.

All people here illegally should be given amnesty. I mean, if you wanna punish them via fines, whatever. I would make that compromise. But illegal immigration has been a boon to our economy--though we should make it easier to come here legally.

Should we take our borders seriously? Sure. But I don't think that free immigration necessarily means we have to ignore our borders. In fact, the US had unrestricted immigration laws in the 17 and 1800s. You could cross the border, register as a resident alien, and after a few years, become a citizen. I think a policy like that could feasibly work--and those who don't register as a "resident alien" would be punished. I mean, it should be easy! Just check the box! Though I still think that poses a national security problem. But hey, it just goes to show that we can have borders and lax immigration control.


But the evidence is pretty clear: immigration is good for the economy. "enforcing current laws" is a terrible idea.

I think costs is a legitimate concern. There are a lot of crimes committed that we more or less cannot afford to prosecute due to costs. There are a lot of people we more or less cannot put in prisons due to costs We nonetheless prosecute and punish as much as we reasonably can. We send as many people to prisons as we reasonably can. Thus I find the idea of simply granting mass-amnesty to be unpersuasive and unwise.

You know immigrants commit crimes less often than native born citizens, right?
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...

And amnesty decreases crime, right?
http://news.stanford.edu...

And my debate w/ Varrack discusses some crime statistics. Literally the only convincing argument against immigration is national security. It is the only valid concern that I have found while reading the literature. I used to be an extremist anti-amnesty person, too. Now I am an extremist the other way.

We need to promote immigration, not scare it away.

The fact that we've gone from 3 million to 11 million illegal immigrants despite having this exact argument during the previous immigration reform debate is a pretty strong indication that we're not scaring it away by any means.

Your policies are meant to scare them away, lol. "enforcing the laws" is literally meant to deport immigrants and deter their arrival. Your statement wants to scare them away. I am happy that they are coming here, and hope the keep doing so.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 9:33:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 3:48:04 AM, 16kadams wrote:

Actually enforcing our laws mean we have to institue mass deportation. So, yes, it means enforcing the current laws we have on the books is bad.

As far as fixing our border problem is concerned, not remotely. For example, part of Ted Cruz's proposal on securing the border is to start enforcing existing laws against the illegal immigrants who are currently entering country or may enter it at a future date, THEN have a conversation on what to do with the 11 million you refer to.

Plus, you're assuming immigration is bad in the first place.

Nope, just illegal immigration. If you wanna come in here legally, I'm all in favor of that!

But I think that would be pretty hectic because the government wouldn't be able to track who comes in or out, and that poses a national security issue.

Not to mention state and local security issues (http://tinyurl.com...) and resources and privileges allocated to non-taxpayers who don't fall under any recognized exception. Open borders + an unlimited welfare state is a pretty nasty combination, bro. You think our unfunded liabilities are bad now. You ain't seen nothing yet.

(1) increase the number of high skilled immigrants that enter this country. THe :number of immigrants is positivley correlated with the number of patents issued, :indicating that immigrants boost innovation.

(2) Expand the guest worker program. A lot. Immigration does a lot of good for this :economy.

That's sounds like something we should warrant express priority registration for. I'm in favor of this. However, you seemed to be suggesting that the problem with our immigration system didn't simply pertain to skilled/hard workers, but to immigrants in general. After all, you want flat out amnesty, not just to people you think bring something to the table. That we've made it too hard to become registered in this country. Is that a correct summary of your position?

That is a bad argument. Jurry nullification exists because the founding fathers want "us to oppose bad laws.

It's good argument in response to efforts to shift the discussion to immigration in general rather than illegal immigration specifically.

As to opposing bad laws, you've already given us reason why the law is good. National Security. We need to know who is coming into the country and who is leaving. We need to be able to keep track of everyone in the country. I went a step further and I supplied additional reasons. (1) We need to be secure on a state and local level. Borders and registration requirements helps us keep people with very bad intentions out the country. (2) We need to make sure almost everyone pulls their weight and is eligible for the rights and benefits involved in living here. Illegal immigration has instead made it to where taxpayers are having to make up for $113 billion dollars in slack each year. ( http://www.fairus.org... ). Borders and registration requirements help us keep track of everyone so that virtually everyone is pulling their weight.

But illegal immigration has been a boon to our economy--though we should make it easier to come here legally.

That's pretty debatable.

http://www.scribd.com...

http://www.fairus.org...

In fact, the US had unrestricted immigration laws in the 17 and 1800s. You could :cross the border, register as a resident alien, and after a few years, become a citizen.

Security was infinitely less complicated back then. All you needed was some guns and a noose to keep the peace. That and we weren't a post-constitutional welfare state republic as of yet! ;)

You know immigrants commit crimes less often than native born citizens, right?

Ah, so nostalgic. You gotta stop thinking like a policy debater and be more conversational. In the past, I was the same way. That comment you're quoting had nothing to do with comparing native born citizen crimes to immigrant crimes. I was addressing this notion of yours that because we don't have the resources to prosecute every single illegal immigrant, we should simply opt not to prosecute anybody at all. That logic fails because virtually every law enforcement agency throughout the country has limited resources and isn't able to prosecute/punish every person for every single crime. Nonetheless, they prosecute/punish people to the extent that they are reasonably able to.

And amnesty decreases crime, right?

Your article is a lot more wishy washy than that (i.e. amnesty may possibly have the possible effect of reducing the national crime rate), but yeah, by saying something is not a crime, you are literally decreasing crime.

Literally the only convincing argument against immigration is national security. It is the only valid concern that I have found while reading the literature. I used to be an extremist anti-amnesty person, too. Now I am an extremist the other way.

To be honest, back when I was a simply a book smart debater, I was a self-proclaimed moderate who not only didn't mind amnesty, but actually found socialism to be just as viable as capitalism. Then I went to law school and got beaten to death with real world experience in clinics and part time jobs. Naturally, I found pretty much all of my former beliefs to be a load of hooey and quickly became a conservative (of the classic liberal variety to be precise). Part of this metamorphosis brought about a strong respect for the rule of law.

Your policies are meant to scare them away, lol. "enforcing the laws" is literally meant to deport immigrants and deter their arrival.

Oh that? Yeah, I guess it is meant to deter illegal immigrants (even though it isn't doing that, but having the exact opposite effect apparently). But that's the point, isn't it? We want people to come in here . . . legally! I'll support any reasonable campaign that makes immigration easier while better serving US interest, but the days of us being a society of lawlessness have got to go.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 9:51:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You know, child labor just like illegal immigration is good for the economy. That issue shouldn't be the reason to ignore existing laws.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 7:48:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 9:51:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
You know, child labor just like illegal immigration is good for the economy. That issue shouldn't be the reason to ignore existing laws.

Child labor isn't good for the economy. Try again.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 8:01:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 9:33:56 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:48:04 AM, 16kadams wrote:



As far as fixing our border problem is concerned, not remotely.

But you literally said above that the issue is that we are not enforcing our laws. So you are just changing the topic of the discussion. If we enforce our laws, you are talking about deporting 11.2 million people. The merits of border security are interesting, though I only challenged you on "enforcing current laws," not whether or not we want the great wall of China in my state.


Plus, you're assuming immigration is bad in the first place.

Nope, just illegal immigration. If you wanna come in here legally, I'm all in favor of that!

Or... A radical idea (which I admit)... legalize it all. Make all migration legal.


But I think that would be pretty hectic because the government wouldn't be able to track who comes in or out, and that poses a national security issue.

Not to mention state and local security issues (http://tinyurl.com...) and resources and privileges allocated to non-taxpayers who don't fall under any recognized exception. Open borders + an unlimited welfare state is a pretty nasty combination, bro. You think our unfunded liabilities are bad now. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Not necessarily. Immigrants use welfare at a lower rate, and if the effect on the economy is positive, you increase incomes and decrease the deficit. Open border policies would reduce global poverty by 40-66% (http://www.freit.org...), and increase GDP by 50-150% (http://pubs.aeaweb.org...). A dynamic budgeting method would probably show that open borders would reduce spending. Plus, if that was an issue, instead of restricting immigration, restrict what benefits they get.

As for crime, those numbers are simply false. Incarceration rates for foreign born men are much lower than they are for native born men (http://www.immigrationpolicy.org...). Further, even if it was true, would that support deportation or limiting immigration? African Americans commit crime more often than Caucasians. Should we deport them as a group? Merely causing crime is not enough to justify immigration restrictions. A good paper on immigration and crime is this one: https://www.ncjrs.gov...


That's sounds like something we should warrant express priority registration for. I'm in favor of this. However, you seemed to be suggesting that the problem with our immigration system didn't simply pertain to skilled/hard workers, but to immigrants in general. After all, you want flat out amnesty, not just to people you think bring something to the table. That we've made it too hard to become registered in this country. Is that a correct summary of your position?

Low skilled immigrants do bring things to the table, lol. But if you wanna put it that way, sure.


It's good argument in response to efforts to shift the discussion to immigration in general rather than illegal immigration specifically.

lol, not really. Illegal immigration is also beneficial. So from an economic perspective, you'd lose. Most economists have already accepted this.


As to opposing bad laws, you've already given us reason why the law is good. National Security. We need to know who is coming into the country and who is leaving. We need to be able to keep track of everyone in the country. I went a step further and I supplied additional reasons. (1) We need to be secure on a state and local level. Borders and registration requirements helps us keep people with very bad intentions out the country. (2) We need to make sure almost everyone pulls their weight and is eligible for the rights and benefits involved in living here. Illegal immigration has instead made it to where taxpayers are having to make up for $113 billion dollars in slack each year. ( http://www.fairus.org... ). Borders and registration requirements help us keep track of everyone so that virtually everyone is pulling their weight.

I discuss why those monetary estimates are flawed here (http://www.debate.org...). And I accept the national security reasons, but neither of those would really affect open borders. You could essentially lift all immigration restrictions while having a border where you need to check in and out. All this draconian stuff that conservatives want is unnecessary.


But illegal immigration has been a boon to our economy--though we should make it easier to come here legally.

That's pretty debatable.

http://www.scribd.com...

http://www.fairus.org...

The only way immigrants would reduce employment is by creating a labor surplus, but that logic assumes ceteris paribus. By definition, nothing stays the same after an influx of immigrants. More immigrants = more consumption = growing economy makes up for any jobs lost. Go to #2 on this list: http://www.econlib.org...


You know immigrants commit crimes less often than native born citizens, right?

Ah, so nostalgic. You gotta stop thinking like a policy debater and be more conversational. In the past, I was the same way. That comment you're quoting had nothing to do with comparing native born citizen crimes to immigrant crimes. I was addressing this notion of yours that because we don't have the resources to prosecute every single illegal immigrant, we should simply opt not to prosecute anybody at all. That logic fails because virtually every law enforcement agency throughout the country has limited resources and isn't able to prosecute/punish every person for every single crime. Nonetheless, they prosecute/punish people to the extent that they are reasonably able to.

Are you pretty much saying that more people, even if they commit less crime, = more crap for policeman to do = bad? I dunno if I am interpreting that right. That kind of makes sense, but even then, why restrict immigration for the many if just a few are criminals? Seems unfair to me



by saying something is not a crime, you are literally decreasing crime.

I bet a study produced by Stanford would not count crimes related to immigration itself, unless they are QI

To be honest, back when I was a simply a book smart debater, I was a self-proclaimed moderate... became a conservative (of the classic liberal variety to be precise). Part of this metamorphosis brought about a strong respect for the rule of law.

I am a book smart conservative, lol. Most of the views I get are from stat spam. And I love rule of law.

Your policies are meant to scare them away, lol. "enforcing the laws" is literally meant to deport immigrants and deter their arrival.

Oh that? Yeah, I guess it is meant to deter illegal immigrants (even though it isn't doing that, but having the exact opposite effect apparently). But that's the point, isn't it? We want people to come in here . . . legally! I'll support any reasonable campaign that makes immigration easier while better serving US interest, but the days of us being a society of lawlessness have got to go.

Immigration has actually been declining since 2007.

Also this legal/illegal thing is total BS. We can literally make 99.9% of it legal. So, yes, I want people to come here legally too :P -- plus, illegal immigration is still a net-positive to the economy.

You should read Jeffrey Clemens on immigration. I mean, I could send you a PM with what restrictions we could have while still legaliz
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 8:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 10:38:58 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
Here is an excellent article taking down all the Republican arguments on immigration:

http://fivethirtyeight.com...

Trump is mentioned in the title, but I've heard some form of these arguments from most Republican candidates and party leaders.

I wish all politicians had to read the articles in this study before casting a vote on any immigration reform bill.

The Republican's ideas on ending illegal immigration, greatly remind me of their War on Drugs. Brute force tactics are just a waste of money when the real issue is one of economics.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 8:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 9:33:56 AM, Logical-Master wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:48:04 AM, 16kadams wrote:

Ah, so nostalgic. You gotta stop thinking like a policy debater and be more conversational.

Also, I am not even a policy debater. The debates I have done IRL were limited to like 10 earlier this summer, and the debate format I plan to do in the future at my school (I am making a debate team at my school since it has none) is super casual and not really source spammy. But I do that anyway :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 10:27:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 7:48:52 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 8/22/2015 9:51:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
You know, child labor just like illegal immigration is good for the economy. That issue shouldn't be the reason to ignore existing laws.

Child labor isn't good for the economy. Try again.

right.