Trump, the man with a dream of a Wall

[Tero]

Speech
“I thought he kind of undercut his core message by introducing other people.”

PAUL STONE • OCEAN CRITIC
https://www.theonion.com/state-of-the-u ... 1822607827

[Forty Two]

Finance seems the last thing that worries Trump. I suppose being bankrupt nine times does make one slightly blasé.

Keeping millions more illegal aliens from coming in and switching to an employment/merit based immigration system in place of extended family immigration would save billions of dollars.

Can you explain the basis for your assertion?

Sure, in the mid-1990s, the GAO estimated the net cost of illegal immigration to the US was between $2 billion and $19 billion annually. That's less than the conservative anti-immigration group "FAIR's" estimate of net $99 billion, of course, and these are all estimates. But, I've seen many folks here rely on GAO estimates. That 1995 GAO report utilized an estimated illegal immigrant population of something like 5 million, and now the estimates of the size of the illegal immigration population is more than double that, at about 11.4 million (some higher estimates are given sometimes, but 11.4 million seems an accepted number regardless of political stripe).

Also, if instead of millions of illegal immigrants, we bring in employment based folks who have relatively high paying jobs, then they would likely be generally net payers, not net recipients.

Thus, there would be savings by reducing the cost of illegal immigrants, and a gain in terms of higher income level folks who come here gainfully employed.

Interesting thing regarding Trump. Note, he said he'll legalize 1.8 million "dreamers" right? And what does he want? Elimination of a "lottery" to give away permanent residents on a random basis, like playing Lotto for green cards. And, he wants to do away with family immigration so that immigrants cannot also bring along their extended families, like brothers, sisters, adult parents, aunts and uncles, etc.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre ... 343&top=14 Looking to other first world countries, for example, Canada, I don't think that what Trump is proposing is particularly controversial. In Canada, an immigrant cannot bring their extended family in. They bring their spouse and dependent children. Sounds fair, doesn't it? Canada does allow someone to sponsor their parents later to come in, but that's severely restricted. There are only 10,000 of those allowed, and Canada has strict financial support requirements where the sponsor has to have the means to support the parent. They have to sign a commitment to financially support the parent for 20 years.

I note that in Australia, a citizen or permanent resident of Oz isn't automatically allowed to bring in their adult parents. They have significant limitations. A foreign person can be sponsored by their Ozzie child if the Ozzie child is a citizen or permanent resident and has resided in Oz for at least 2 years, AND the immigrant passes the "balance of family" test (designed to show that they have greater family links to Oz than to their own country), AND they meet the "character" and "health" test. So, Oz is guarded about allowing a 20-something immigrant to come in, and then get their parents in.

Maybe this is an area where the Democrats, if they think that Trump's plan goes to far, they can propose something like what they do in Oz or Canada for such sponsorships.

[Rum]

Interesting item on a BBC radio news programme a few days ago suggesting that the USA has never had a completely open door immigration policy and has at various times been pretty picky about who to keep out. In particular Chinese people were prohibited from entering the USA unless you were from a few very narrowly defined groups (doctors etc). The 'Exclusion Acts' which came into force in the 1880s were not actually repealed until the 1940s.

Here:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/18 ... mmigration

[Tero]

We bring in 1 million immigrants every year. Very few of them end up in jail the first year and most end up finding a job. Immigrants are not a problem.

Baby boomers retiring before they are 65 are a problem. Millions of them.

[Forty Two]

CNN:All available national crime statistics show immigrants commit fewer crimes, not more, than those born in the U.S. Even opponents of increased immigration lack evidence linking immigrants to higher crime rates.

Certainly, but those crime statistics do not address illegal immigrants, who do commit more crimes, particularly those illegal immigrants who enter illegally, rather than merely overstaying a visa. Criminal aliens make up 27% of the prison population - https://www.gao.gov/assets/100/93090.pdf

And, https://www.gao.gov/assets/100/93090.pdf Reviewing 55,322 aliens in federal or state prisons and local jails who “entered the country illegally.” Those illegal aliens were arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.

Referring to "immigrants" when the issue is "illegal immigrants" is not proof of anything.

[Forty Two]

We bring in 1 million immigrants every year. Very few of them end up in jail the first year and most end up finding a job. Immigrants are not a problem.

Baby boomers retiring before they are 65 are a problem. Millions of them.

Nobody is saying immigrants are the problem. Illegal immigrants are "a" problem.

Baby boomers retiring is a function of age, not immigration. If they all got up and moved to Canada without permission, I'm sure the Canadians would have a bit of an issue with that.

[Tero]

Just giving you the big picture. We will absorb them all. Legal or not. All part of the process. Just like fungi process dead wood into CO2. Then we make more people out of that.

Trump is fixing a problem that will be fixed just by time. Just like we came and took over from the natives.

[Forty Two]

Interesting item on a BBC radio news programme a few days ago suggesting that the USA has never had a completely open door immigration policy and has at various times been pretty picky about who to keep out. In particular Chinese people were prohibited from entering the USA unless you were from a few very narrowly defined groups (doctors etc). The 'Exclusion Acts' which came into force in the 1880s were not actually repealed until the 1940s.

Here:

https://history.state.gov/milestones/18 ... mmigration

Absolutely. The US, like most every other country, has its "issues" in this regard. There definitely have been distasteful immigration laws. Lots of racism that people today find hard to grasp was commonplace 50 and 100 years ago.

Things have gradually changed. When I was a kid, I remember it being a very common idea - in the New York area - that "...while I'm not racist, I just think people should marry or stick to their own kind..." In the 19th and early 20th centuries, pretty much everyone was racist, and if we all were born and raised then, we'd likely be racist too. Abraham Lincoln was racist. Woodrow Wilson was racist. Winston Churchill was racist. Despite Victoria & Abdul, Queen Victoria was a racist.

Everyone in the 18th and 19th century, even if they were staunchly abolitionist, and against various awful, now thankfully long gone, practices, were still racists. Northerners weren't welcoming local black teens to court their debutantes. They were not hiring black people equally with white people. By and large, a white person in that era thought that there must have been superiority for whites over non-whites. Very very very few people in that era would have been arguing that Asians were equal to white Europeans.

And a big portion of this was economics too, as the Chinese "coolies" were brought in as super low wage workers, and the native workers were not keen on being undercut that way. It's the same motivation that was beneath a lot of abolitionist tendencies - they weren't so much concerned with equality of races, but rather that free labor tends to undercut the ability of people who get paid for their work.

[Forty Two]

Just giving you the big picture. We will absorb them all. Legal or not. All part of the process. Just like fungi process dead wood into CO2. Then we make more people out of that.

Trump is fixing a problem that will be fixed just by time. Just like we came and took over from the natives.

If the numbers were small, the problem would be irrelevant. But, when Trump is telling you he'll legalize 1.8 million people, and that is only 10% of all illegal aliens in the country, it is a problem.

Let me ask you this - should we have any immigration laws? If so, why should there be immigration laws? What is the purpose?
[trying a serious question, hoping for an honest and serious answer]

[Tero]

All countries have immigration laws. They need them in that many continents have expanding populations. People can walk or paddle to Europe.

But we have so many immigrants and illegals that there is no practical process to deport >10 million. Even dumb old Reagan realized this. The laws are no good in the face of these numbers. The cost alone of deporting is more than we can handle.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to that. But it will be of little use and is no longer even needed. The flow of illegals now is a manageable number. The number now here is not.

Added: The deporting of all is too costly. If you send them to apply for a green card like Reagan did, they will voluntarily do it. After the Reagan pardon the deportation took place as usual. Why not spend one day applying for a green card? My Finnish friend Matti did that in LA.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Sure, in the mid-1990s, the GAO estimated the net cost of illegal immigration to the US was between $2 billion and $19 billion annually. That's less than the conservative anti-immigration group "FAIR's" estimate of net $99 billion, of course, and these are all estimates. But, I've seen many folks here rely on GAO estimates. That 1995 GAO report utilized an estimated illegal immigrant population of something like 5 million, and now the estimates of the size of the illegal immigration population is more than double that, at about 11.4 million (some higher estimates are given sometimes, but 11.4 million seems an accepted number regardless of political stripe).

Also, if instead of millions of illegal immigrants, we bring in employment based folks who have relatively high paying jobs, then they would likely be generally net payers, not net recipients.

Thus, there would be savings by reducing the cost of illegal immigrants, and a gain in terms of higher income level folks who come here gainfully employed.

The GAO report that you put so much weight on is clear when it states that the numbers it presents are of questionable value:

Because little data are available on illegal aliens’ use of public services and tax payments, the various indirect approaches used to estimate costs and revenues were often based on assumptions whose reasonableness is unknown. Moreover, the studies varied considerably in the range of costs and revenues they included and their treatment of certain items, making them difficult to compare. As a result, a great deal of uncertainty remains about the actual national fiscal impact of illegal aliens.

If you think that the GAO report actually presents solid information, you're mistaken.

As for FAIR, it's interesting that you're quick to point out what you believe are unreliable, biased sources when they don't support your position, but you're happy to use a clearly biased source when the situation is reversed.

I've previously linked to a paper that uses empirical studies to show that in fact, undocumented workers represent a fiscal net positive. Apparently you failed to notice that. From the paper:

Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy. The widespread belief is that "illegal aliens" cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false. "[E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite. . . : undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services." Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy by investing and consuming goods and services; filling millions of "essential worker" positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and making unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs.

[Forty Two]

All countries have immigration laws. They need them in that many continents have expanding populations. People can walk or paddle to Europe.

But we have so many immigrants and illegals that there is no practical process to deport >10 million. Even dumb old Reagan realized this. The laws are no good in the face of these numbers. The cost alone of deporting is more than we can handle.

Saying there is no practical process to deport 10 million illegal immigrants doesn't tell us anything. However, what needs to be done is to stop the flow, or reduce the flow as much as possible, and then chip away at the illegal immigration problem slowly over time. By changing the immigration process and deporting more illegal aliens, there is generally an increase in "self deportations," too. So, you can legalize 1.8 million, deport 2 million, and then there will be some additional number that self-deports, and if you can get a handle on the flow into the country, so that the numbers are dropping, you can then gradually deport or legalize the remainder over time.

The cost of a wall is peanuts compared to that. But it will be of little use and is no longer even needed. The flow of illegals now is a manageable number. The number now here is not.

And, it's the fault of people who resist reasonable border security measures, and refuse to allow a reform of the immigration laws to turn off the spigot. It's not manageable now precisely because 20 years ago Congress and the President refused to solve the problem.

Added: The deporting of all is too costly. If you send them to apply for a green card like Reagan did, they will voluntarily do it. After the Reagan pardon the deportation took place as usual. Why not spend one day applying for a green card? My Finnish friend Matti did that in LA.

Reagan's agreement to do that was supposed to result in Congress taking measures to not let such a large number of illegal immigrants build up again. Yet, it built up again.

[Scot Dutchy]

As for FAIR, it's interesting that you're quick to point out what you believe are unreliable, biased sources when they don't support your position, but you're happy to use a clearly biased source when the situation is reversed.

But that is par for the course for 42.

[Tero]

Quaint tradition of president respecting law and citzens now history. President can apparently own businesses and do any kind of shit and get away with it. Old documents are just ”helpful hints” not law:

Trump has continually tested the ethical and normative limits, whether by refusing to release his tax returns, remaining entwined in his businesses, or reportedly meddling in the investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russia. Office of Government Ethics head Walter Shaub quit his job over the summer to join an outside ethics group after clashing with Trump multiple times on conflicts of interest.

Trump’s presidency has revealed how many traditions of the presidency are just that — traditions, not requirements. They’re historical nice-to-haves that assume the president will continue to follow suit. Bharara and Whitman’s task force hopes to give them some teeth.

“It’s taking the lessons and transgressions noted on the part of this administration and preventing those things from happening again in the future,” Bharara told me.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -conflicts

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's been demonstrated that the American electorate is capable of putting an obviously self-serving mountebank who has no concept of respect for the office of the presidency into the White House, so getting somebody even worse than Trump isn't outside the realm of possibility. Given that, some laws that fence in an ethically bankrupt president and restrict the exercise of venality aren't a terrible idea.