• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Veterans Benefits and Immigration Reform mutually exclusive?

cpwill said:
And so when we are looking at, for example, the availability of jobs, does having people compete with a greater or a lesser supply of labor increase their chances?
Click to expand...

If you believe in the free market, people will only immigrate to the US as long as the demand for labor persists. Looking at recent immigration trends, I'd say this is probably true.


cpwill said:
And so when we are looking at, for example, the availability of jobs, does having people compete with a greater or a lesser supply of What? We spend the equivalent of a rounding error of Medicare Fraud on the Border Patrol.
Click to expand...

First of all, if you were to actually include all expenditures for immigration and border protection the total would ring closer to $18,000,000,000 per fiscal year, which is coincidentally nearly double the entire operating budget for the U.S. Coast Guard.

Either way, simply comparing one massive quantity of wasted money to a larger quantity of wasted money does not really make the smaller one go away. Whether Medicare wastes $200 billon dollars per year or not, does not make wasting an additional $18 billion on border protection a good deal. Especially where the protection/ enforcement you're talking about would cost much more than $18 billion dollars per year.



cpwill said:
:lol: I'm willing to spend 12 Bn to be able to perform one of the basic security functions of a state. Being able to secure our border is a non-negotiable. It's like having a defensive capability, or a police force. You pay for it.
Click to expand...

Sure, just like you are going to pay for anything, but you should really evaluate the return on investment. Mathematically speaking, it just doesn't work out to a good deal.

Besides, citing our spending on defense [see offense] is outrageous and probably a poor talking point for any fiscal conservative.

cpwill said:
Incidentally - "streamlining the process for legal immigration" is going to cost money ;).

Sure. So long as we can convince millions of latin americans to get on easily identified large vessels and transport themselves through a receiving center where we retain the right to send them right back.

....how do you propose we do that.
Click to expand...

People are relatively simple.

As long as the United States has an economic opportunity for them, they are going to come here legally or otherwise. If it is easier, more beneficial and at all practical for them to enter the United States legally they will do exactly that. Ellis island was a perfect example of a functioning immigration system, where we convinced millions of immigrants to take their boats to a clearly defined immigration hub.

Keep in mind that our Atlantic coast is much larger [and at the time harder to enforce] than our land borders.
 
No they're not. Statements such as the example you gave are catchphrases people remember because in general, people like veterans. Therefore, if you say enough times that immigrants are somehow hurting veterans, they're going to believe it, even if there isn't an ounce of truth behind that statement.
 
Starbuck said:
If you believe in the free market, people will only immigrate to the US as long as the demand for labor persists. Looking at recent immigration trends, I'd say this is probably true.
Click to expand...

If I believe in the free market, then I believe that demand is partly a function of price. Illegal immigrant labor comes without ten thousand dollars per head in regulatory burdens plus accounting plus tax burdens.

First of all, if you were to actually include all expenditures for immigration and border protection the total would ring closer to $18,000,000,000 per fiscal year, which is coincidentally nearly double the entire operating budget for the U.S. Coast Guard.
Click to expand...

:shrug: which is fairly small and does an excellent job. I'm still not seeing how this is some kind of massive expense to justify failing in a basic function of the state.

Either way, simply comparing one massive quantity of wasted money to a larger quantity of wasted money does not really make the smaller one go away. Whether Medicare wastes $200 billon dollars per year or not, does not make wasting an additional $18 billion on border protection a good deal. Especially where the protection/ enforcement you're talking about would cost much more than $18 billion dollars per year.
Click to expand...

You haven't even seen what I would do with border enforcement/security. It's worth noting that other nations of the world (gosh, Mexico for example) manage to protect their borders for much less. There are certainly pretty basic ways to go about it - one of which is decreasing the incentive by increasing the risk.

Sure, just like you are going to pay for anything, but you should really evaluate the return on investment. Mathematically speaking, it just doesn't work out to a good deal.
Click to expand...

It's not working to be a "good deal" because we aren't allowing those agencies to do their damn jobs. It's like purchasing a Navy but then instructing them not to defend the Continental United States from invasion. The purchase is a good one, but you have to use it.

Besides, citing our spending on defense [see offense] is outrageous and probably a poor talking point for any fiscal conservative.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, conservatives are free to not engage in starry-eyed uberoptimism about the rest of the world. We are free, therefore, to be fairly realistic about the likely consequences of a global US withdrawal. Want to see what the world looks like without a forward-leaning US defensive posture? Take a look at Libya and Syria. Take a look at Eastern Ukraine. That's what the world looks like when the US decides it'd rather not go to all the trouble.

People are relatively simple.
Click to expand...

:lamo That's fantastic to hear :mrgreen: You should explain this to economists and sociologists. They've been wasting all their time when you have the answer :)

As long as the United States has an economic opportunity for them, they are going to come here legally or otherwise. If it is easier, more beneficial and at all practical for them to enter the United States legally they will do exactly that. Ellis island was a perfect example of a functioning immigration system, where we convinced millions of immigrants to take their boats to a clearly defined immigration hub.
Click to expand...

Great Idea!

so..... how are we going to convince millions of hispanic immigrants who are crossing a border along the south (which is easy) to instead get on boats (which is more difficult) and head towards a central checking area (which they don't want to do)? Magic?

Ellis Island worked well enough when the immigrants coming in were already on boats, were desirous of going through legal processes, and could be herded through a single check station. That is not the case today.

Keep in mind that our Atlantic coast is much larger [and at the time harder to enforce] than our land borders.
Click to expand...

Actually ships capable of crossing the Atlantic tend to be somewhat noticeable. A guy hopping across the Rio Grande on a ski-do less so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom