• 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!

DHS preparing to arrest leaders of sanctuary cities

Absentglare said:
Free trade of labor draws more competition at the bottom of the economic ladder, which predictably lowers wages where it becomes more competitive.

The free trade of labor is good for the economy, it just has to be balanced. When we don't have any competition at the top of the economic ladder, an industry giant who is the only game in town can cut wages without suffering a mass exodus.
Click to expand...

Not without a "safety net" or those used to third world living conditions - otherwise who could afford to work for less than they need to live on?

The beauty of the "safety net" is folks that need $X/month do not care how much of that $X comes from a meager paycheck and how much is added by the "safety net". Rather than an employer having to offer all workers a "living wage" (far lower for those willing to live in third world conditions) they can offer far less because those that are deemed more needy (qualify for "safety net" assistance) get the balance handed to them.

It is less expensive for a "job creator" to pay a bit more in taxes (to support a "safety net") than to pay all workers more to avoid the need for that "safety net". BTW, we just saw a huge tax cut for those "job creators" so who does that leave to fund the (ever growing?) "safety net"?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
There you go again, thinking that the Republicans THEN were somehow the same as the Republicans TODAY. Do yourself a favor and look at the GOP party platform of 1956 (under Eisenhower) - it's not much different from the DEMOCRATIC party platform of 2012 under Obama!

The lesson, sir, is that it's not unusual for parties to switch from liberal to conservative or vice versa...but "conservative" and "liberal" are not political parties...and the Republicans of Lincoln's day were seen as the LIBERALS, just as the Democrats of my youth in the Deep South were very strongly CONSERVATIVE.
Click to expand...

+1

Liberal Democrat today is redundant. 50 years ago is was an oxymoron.
 
JasperL said:
If that's the case, there is no solution to any problem. I'm not really sure what the alternatives you're suggesting might be. My own stance is pretty simple - these people are human beings and a country like the United States shouldn't treat them like disposable vermin, whom we can use for as long as they are a benefit to us, then discard like trash across the border when we change our minds.
Click to expand...

The problem is that 1st generation immigrants beget US citizens. Who fills the low wage jobs that "citizens will not do" when the current batch of immigrants retires (or become citizens)? The US labor system now depends on immigrant (legal or not) labor so the next batch of immigrants (legal or not) is assured.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem is that 1st generation immigrants beget US citizens. Who fills the low wage jobs that "citizens will not do" when the current batch of immigrants retires (or become citizens)? The US labor system now depends on immigrant (legal or not) labor so the next batch of immigrants (legal or not) is assured.
Click to expand...

OK, assuming I agree (and I don't entirely...), then what's your suggestion? At least roughly 12 million are here illegally. What do we do with those 12 million individuals, many of them with families, kids, jobs, houses, etc.?

Fact is for farm work in particular, but also lots of other jobs, we have relied on immigrant labor for as long as we have been a country. The problem is illegal labor has spread into shrinking skilled and semi-skilled blue collar jobs at a time of wage stagnation over a period of decades.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OK, assuming I agree (and I don't really, not entirely...), then what's your suggestion? At least roughly 12 million are here illegally. What do we do with those 12 million individuals, many of them with families, kids, jobs, houses, etc.?

Fact is for farm work in particular, but also lots of other jobs, we have relied on immigrant labor for as long as we have been a country.
Click to expand...

Why have we relied on immigrant labor? The answer is that they will accept lower pay because they accept a lower standard of living. In order to attract citizen labor you must pay enough for their higher expected standard of living - for many that is done via the "safety net" offering what the employer does not.
 
Moderate Right said:
And that changes what I said, how?
Click to expand...

I don't think it does. I was just clarifying because what I posted earlier wasn't entirely correct.

And, I thought it was funny that a Texan Republican was filing legislation young illegal immigrants, when you and yours like to use Texas as the poster-boy for how to handle immigrants.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure you actually read my post.... :confused:

There is a huge and IMO moral and ethical problem with what to do with people who came here illegally and have been here, in many cases, for a decade or more, built a life, have kids, families, jobs, ties to the community, etc. So I'm not sure what "it" is above. Obviously, immigration as a topic is a "problem" for many people, especially on the right - Trump supporters.

And some places in part become sanctuary cities because they believe NOT shattering the trust between immigrant populations and the police is better for the community as a whole. There are obviously other reasons.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Democrats want open immigration with no restrictions. Anyone who wants to come in can come in. They are more than welcome, despite immigration laws. Everyone is an immigrant, whether they are legal or illegal. Most Republicans are more than willing to have immigration reform, DACA, etc. as long as we increase border security and stop the bleeding so DACA is not just a continuous program that never ends. Democrats seem totally unwilling to do this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why have we relied on immigrant labor? The answer is that they will accept lower pay because they accept a lower standard of living. In order to attract citizen labor you must pay enough for their higher expected standard of living.
Click to expand...

OK, again, I mostly agree.

So we have identified the problem, now what's the solution to the 12 million illegals we (IMO) invited to come here and now have decided we'd rather dispose of like the trash across some border?

The labor problem will sort itself out somehow. If there is a real shortage, employers can raise wages a bit, and if that doesn't work, they'll exert their influence and get guest worker programs or whatever is needed to find labor at a price the big donors will accept.
 
Moderate Right said:
The thing is, Democrats want open immigration with no restrictions. Anyone who wants to come in can come in. They are more than welcome, despite immigration laws. Everyone is an immigrant, whether they are legal or illegal.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Show me the bills proposed during the early Obama years to do away with ICE and border controls? Show me where Obama refused to enforce immigration law? Etc. You're manufacturing a position for "Democrats" that's not based in any reality.

Most Republicans are more than willing to have immigration reform, DACA, etc. as long as we increase border security and stop the bleeding so DACA is not just a continuous program that never ends. Democrats seem totally unwilling to do this.
Click to expand...

IMO, that's not true, but if you'd like to back that up with some evidence of some kind, that would be good.
 
Absentglare said:
Oh, so all left wingers have to do is completely forfeit their political position and do something to severely damage the economy because of racism and most everything can go on as is. Thanks for your generous offer.
Click to expand...

That's just it. If they reverse their decision, their economy will be saved.
 
JasperL said:
OK, again, I mostly agree.

So we have identified the problem, now what's the solution to the 12 million illegals we (IMO) invited to come here and now have decided we'd rather dispose of like the trash across some border?

The labor problem will sort itself out somehow. If there is a real shortage, employers can raise wages a bit, and if that doesn't work, they'll exert their influence and get guest worker programs or whatever is needed to find labor at a price the big donors will accept.
Click to expand...

We have decided no such thing - we continue to ignore immigration reform, grant periodic amnesty to millions of "illegal" immigrants and (largely) do not enforce existing (border or interior) immigration law. You seem to be confusing immigration rhetoric with immigration policy action.

If we granted blanket amnesty (permanent resident status) tomorrow then nothing much would change.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not without a "safety net" or those used to third world living conditions - otherwise who could afford to work for less than they need to live on?

The beauty of the "safety net" is folks that need $X/month do not care how much of that $X comes from a meager paycheck and how much is added by the "safety net". Rather than an employer having to offer all workers a "living wage" (far lower for those willing to live in third world conditions) they can offer far less because those that are deemed more needy (qualify for "safety net" assistance) get the balance handed to them.

It is less expensive for a "job creator" to pay a bit more in taxes (to support a "safety net") than to pay all workers more to avoid the need for that "safety net". BTW, we just saw a huge tax cut for those "job creators" so who does that leave to fund the (ever growing?) "safety net"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that i understand what you're saying, so please correct me if i fail to address it.

I feel like you're suggesting that you can't quit your job without a safety net. What i'm saying is if the employers competed the way employees do, the employees could leave and go to another employer. In such a case, there would be no need to fall back on a safety net, just abandon the ****ty employer and get hired by a competitor.
 
Critter7r said:
I don't think it does. I was just clarifying because what I posted earlier wasn't entirely correct.

And, I thought it was funny that a Texan Republican was filing legislation young illegal immigrants, when you and yours like to use Texas as the poster-boy for how to handle immigrants.
Click to expand...

I have actually never used Texas in any immigration debate. I'm not really an expert on immigration but I do have an opinion that since we have immigration laws then we should enforce them. If Democrats don't want to enforce them then they should just get rid of immigration laws. I am against immigration of any kind, both legal and illegal, if it involves government doling out money to people that are not self sufficient at a time when we already owe 20 trillion dollars. That's just assinine. It is also a great disservice to those who come here legally and jump through the proper hoops to have other people come here and dodge the hoops altogether. I'm for a DACA fix and immigration reform as long as the US plugs the holes in the dyke. Democrats want these fixes and reforms but they are mighty lax on stopping it from being a regular ongoing problem.
 
Moderate Right said:
The thing is, Democrats want open immigration with no restrictions.
Click to expand...

No we don't.

Moderate Right said:
Anyone who wants to come in can come in. They are more than welcome, despite immigration laws. Everyone is an immigrant, whether they are legal or illegal. Most Republicans are more than willing to have immigration reform, DACA, etc. as long as we increase border security and stop the bleeding so DACA is not just a continuous program that never ends. Democrats seem totally unwilling to do this.
Click to expand...

What "bleeding"?
 
JasperL said:
That's not true. Show me the bills proposed during the early Obama years to do away with ICE and border controls? Show me where Obama refused to enforce immigration law? Etc. You're manufacturing a position for "Democrats" that's not based in any reality.



IMO, that's not true, but if you'd like to back that up with some evidence of some kind, that would be good.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Obama told ICE not to enforce the laws.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm not sure that i understand what you're saying, so please correct me if i fail to address it.

I feel like you're suggesting that you can't quit your job without a safety net. What i'm saying is if the employers competed the way employees do, the employees could leave and go to another employer. In such a case, there would be no need to fall back on a safety net, just abandon the ****ty employer and get hired by a competitor.
Click to expand...

Yep, you missed my point. Let me try again. All McJobs (entry level positions) pay fairly low wages yet some (many?) McWorkers also receive "safety net" assistance (based largely on household size) such that they are able to live better than that meager wage alone would allow. Switching from one McJob to another (lateral transfer) makes no difference and even getting a slightly better paying (yet still low wage) McJob makes no (or very little) difference since the "safety net" assistance is reduced (often dollar for dollar) based on the wage increase.
 
Moderate Right said:
Are you kidding me? Obama told ICE not to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...

A quote? A link? Which ICE departments? Which laws? Anything?

Your extremism (No dem wants any immigration laws enforced, they just want all immigrants to have full immunity, blah blah .. ) is tiresome.

You seem to be incapable of having any sort of nuanced discussion.
 
Moderate Right said:
Have to admit, if I were president, this is what I would do. If California is going to do their very best not to cooperate then we send in every ICE agent we've got and clean up the state and raid every employer they've got from A to Z, including farms. Turn the screws on the rack until California cries uncle. If we have to send in the Army to make it more practical then we send in the Army. It's about time California quit thumbing their noses at the federal government. California wants bigger government, then we'll show them bigger government. If they want to secede then we'll kiss them goodbye.
Click to expand...

If you were president, you’d mobilize the armed forces against a state. Think about that for a sec.
 
Moderate Right said:
Are you kidding me? Obama told ICE not to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. He instructed them to prioritize criminals, and to not deport Dreamers. But ICE never left the borders, the immigration courts were slammed for the entire 8 years of the Obama administration doing what they do, etc.

I don't know why you want to make this into a black/white democrats evil/GOP good issue. There is no way you can read about the issue and believe that's the case. Yes, there are differences in the parties, but it's fact, for example, that millions more illegals on net crossed during the 8 years of Bush II than the 8 years of Obama. There were never more agents at the border in recent decades than during the Obama years.
 
Moderate Right said:
Are you kidding me? Obama told ICE not to enforce the laws.
Click to expand...

here ... I'll even help because I feel sorry for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...eddc056ad8a_story.html?utm_term=.5709a26b8bed

"The new policies direct agents to focus on the three priority groups and leave virtually everyone else alone."

Why? Well, it goes on to tell you why ...

"Demographic data shows that the typical undocumented immigrant has lived in the United States for a decade or more and has established strong community ties."

and why is it not important to go after those immigrants? Because they ".. have been here for years, have committed no serious crimes and have, in effect, become integrated members of our society".

Do you advocate that we start going around our neighborhoods calling the police on unmarried couples that are living together? That would teach those law-breakers a lesson!! Even though it's a dumb law. (It was illegal in FL until 2016, and still is illegal in Michigan and Mississippi).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, you missed my point. Let me try again. All McJobs (entry level positions) pay fairly low wages yet some (many?) McWorkers also receive "safety net" assistance (based largely on household size) such that they are able to live better than that meager wage alone would allow. Switching from one McJob to another (lateral transfer) makes no difference and even getting a slightly better paying (yet still low wage) McJob makes no (or very little) difference since the "safety net" assistance is reduced (often dollar for dollar) based on the wage increase.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, thank you very much. I understand now.

You're referring to welfare cliffs. Well, i'm skeptical that they're as pronounced as many right wing publications would suggest. I can imagine that they could be phased out on such a way that they gently slope, but that may impose administrative complexity (and therefore bureaucratic costs).

Means-tested social programs are the compromise between the conflicting interests of providing much needed services to the poor and conserving the money spent doing so.

Here's a graph of a couple welfare cliffs:

9108b449916a33844571f598f1a7fe15.jpg


What Would Happen If We Just Gave People Money? | FiveThirtyEight

And the article it comes from also explains what i believe to be the solution: universal basic income. Getting rid of means testing would make every dollar earned additional income, and we would make sure that everybody has basic needs fulfilled. Moreover, it sends the message that human life has value, a message that i consider important in the context of an economy that may soon be dominated by automation.

Sure, it'd be expensive. But let's say i make $100,000/year now, all private income. If, instead, i make $10,000 from the government and $90,000 from my employer, my income is unchanged. So while it'd be a tremendous cost for the government (trillions per year), it wouldn't necessarily hurt us to pay for since we, as a group, essentially pay for our own benefits.
 
Absentglare said:
Ah, yes, thank you very much. I understand now.

You're referring to welfare cliffs. Well, i'm skeptical that they're as pronounced as many right wing publications would suggest. I can imagine that they could be phased out on such a way that they gently slope, but that may impose administrative complexity (and therefore bureaucratic costs).

Means-tested social programs are the compromise between the conflicting interests of providing much needed services to the poor and conserving the money spent doing so.

Here's a graph of a couple welfare cliffs:

9108b449916a33844571f598f1a7fe15.jpg


What Would Happen If We Just Gave People Money? | FiveThirtyEight

And the article it comes from also explains what i believe to be the solution: universal basic income. Getting rid of means testing would make every dollar earned additional income, and we would make sure that everybody has basic needs fulfilled. Moreover, it sends the message that human life has value, a message that i consider important in the context of an economy that may soon be dominated by automation.

Sure, it'd be expensive. But let's say i make $100,000/year now, all private income. If, instead, i make $10,000 from the government and $90,000 from my employer, my income is unchanged. So while it'd be a tremendous cost for the government (trillions per year), it wouldn't necessarily hurt us to pay for since we, as a group, essentially pay for our own benefits.
Click to expand...

You are still not quite getting it. McJobs pay enough for a single person or, better yet, two single person's living together to share living expenses. For a person with a family (dependent minor children) to support, a McJob's pay is not enough yet we see many folks with families to support (happily and proudly?) working these McJobs. That is only possible because a family (with a single McJob income) gets "safety net" assistance.

If an employer based their pay on what that any particular worker "needed", rather than paying all in such positions the same wage, then folks would (rightly) scream discrimination and demand that employers give equal pay for equal work. The "safety net" solves that problem for the employer since they pay all workers a low wage (not enough to support a family) and we the sheeple (stupidly) make up the difference, via the "safety net", only for those "needy" folks. Stupid folks then call that system of unequal pay for equal work fair.

BIG would make matters worse, since employers would lower their pay because you don't "need" more pay since you have BIG.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are still not quite getting it. McJobs pay enough for a single person or, better yet, two single person's living together to share living expenses. For a person with a family (dependent minor children) to support, a McJob's pay is not enough yet we see many folks with families to support (happily and proudly?) working these McJobs. That is only possible because a family (with a single McJob income) gets "safety net" assistance.
Click to expand...

Goes back to irresponsibility. Society needs to find a way of stopping people from unnecessarily being dependent on others from supporting them. Shouldn't be having children if you cannot afford them, meaning you shouldn't take the risk of having children if you cant afford them.

This irresponsibility is one factor that will doom our society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom