# News Immigration issues and proposals

1. Aug 4, 2015

### WWGD

Posts dated before about 5 PM EST 8-Aug-2015 were split off from the Donald Trump thread. You may need to refer to that thread for some context.

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

Just curious:
1) Next Mexican flow is negative, but they should still pay for a problem for which they are not responsible.?
2)What happens if plan to build the border is stalled in the courts because of eminent domain and other lawsuits?
3)How will you pay for yearly maintenance of wall, and salaries/provisions , forts for guards stationed along a 1,400 mile wall?
4) What happens if Mexicans refuse to pay: would Trump decide to start a war against Mexico? Will _you_ or your relatives be fighting in that war?
5) Many of the people you are keeping out are Hondurans, Salvadorans escaping a war zone , which trump neglected to mention. Is this how you, trump treat people
who are running away from their lives?
6) How do you expect (at least functionally) illiterate, poor peasants from these war-torn countries to file formal paperwork to go live and work in the U.S, when their lives are threatened and they have no money to hire lawyers?

Other than that, it is indeed a great plan. Go trump!

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2015
2. Aug 5, 2015

### Czcibor

Good that you pointed migration direction. Now everything is logic.
Let's see premises:
- The purpose of building such wall is keeping Mexicans out
- Mexicans are actually migrating rather back from USA to Mexico
- Mexico should pay for it
Mexico should invest in it to prevent return of those guest workers going back home.

3. Aug 6, 2015

### mheslep

Every country is responsible for its own borders, inc the U.S., and of course new, not net, illegal immigrants are causing the problem about which the U.S. must act to resolve.

4. Aug 6, 2015

### WWGD

What problems are those? And do you know the ones causing the problems arrive illegally through the borders? Going back a few posts, you stated something to the effect that not just anyone was allowed to enter the US in the earlier days, in the 1890's -on. Still, at least 30 million were allowed in. How demanding can the process have been? Did all these families include someone who had cured cancer, someone who volunteered to teach in African villages? Common, a completely higher standard is being applied nowadays.

5. Aug 7, 2015

### WWGD

But of course, borders did not need defending previously, around the 1900's-1930's , because all 30,000,000 + of the arrivals under an incredibly-demanding weeding process were doctors, Nobel laureates, saints and/or nuclear physicists. Yes, 30,000,000 people, all of them exceptional.

6. Aug 8, 2015

### mheslep

And they were *legal* immigrants.

7. Aug 8, 2015

### WWGD

But the rules have changed, and people with similar conditions , equally * non-exceptional" as those 30,000,000 cannot *immigrate*.
So the standards have *changed*. Basically, if those same 30,000,000 tried to immigrate today, most of them would be *sent back * , according to today's laws. So much for basic fairness.

So, has this caused major problems:
1)Almost unfettered immigration in 1890-1930's. Around 30,000,000 , all exceptional people allowed in?

2)1986 amnesty: has that resulted in a great increase in crime? Economic decline?

Poor, uneducated Mexicans are an easy target, an easy scapegoat for the country's problems.

Last edited: Aug 8, 2015
8. Aug 8, 2015

### mheslep

It may be true that poor hispanic immigrants are an easy political target, but that point is also irrelevant to whether or not massive illegal immigration causes problems for nations. Again I refer to illegal immigration, not legal immigration which in the U.S. is still roughly one million people per year.

9. Aug 8, 2015

### Staff: Mentor

Argument via sarcastic hyperbolic strawman is not a tactic well calculated to promote reasonable discussion.

10. Aug 8, 2015

### WWGD

I agree I should drop the sarcasm, but where is the strawman? The claim was that open borders, unfettered immigration was intrinsically hurtful. I am offering evidence to the contrary. You may not believe it is convincing - enough, but it is evidence.

11. Aug 8, 2015

### Staff: Mentor

There are multiple strawmen and the post I was referring to was the triple-bad combination of sarcasm, hyperbole and strawman:
Nobody said that, which makes it a strawman. It isn't anywhere close to true, which makes it hyperbole (at best). And you don't believe it anyway, which makes it sarcasm.

Please dial it back a few notches. You're even confusing yourself:
Nobody made any such claims: the words "open borders" (without qualifier) and "unfettered immigration", much less "intrinsically hurtful" do not appear anywhere in the past few pages of the thread until you just posted them. You are arguing against yourself and don't even realize it.
Successfully knocking-down a ridiculous strawman isn't much of a win. But hey, congrats; you beat yourself in an argument!

12. Aug 8, 2015

### WWGD

Previous immigration was referred to as being more selective, so that not just anyone was allowed in. I (misused) sarcasm, but this is an actual point.
Fair enough.

I did overdo it here.

[edit: quotes fixed.]

Last edited by a moderator: Aug 8, 2015
13. Aug 8, 2015

### Staff: Mentor

I'm not seeing it. Please post the actual quote that someone else said, that you are arguing against.

14. Aug 8, 2015

### MidgetDwarf

A big wall will not stop Mexicans from immigrating. They will either scale it, tunnel under it, or find weakness in the structure making holes.

Most of the immigration previous posters are talking about is mostly due to: After the Mexican - American War, the US needed bodies to settle the new states and work the land. Ww1 and Ww2 was also a large result of immigration. Operation Condor being the main culprit. The majority of immigration to America is a result of Operation Condor.

Let's not forget to throw in Iran Contra into the mix.

15. Aug 8, 2015

### chingel

Around a million of legal immigrants come to the USA each year. It's not lower than back in the day, where do you get the idea that most of them would be sent back? Even if true, how is it relevant? Trump's argument is about having control of the border, so that the immigration rate is controllable and known criminals are not let in, but how high the legal immigration quota should be is a separate issue. I fail to see the relevance of the fact that the legal immigration rate was high some time in the past, or how does that mean that illegal immigration should be tolerated now.

Illegal immigration is the unfair system: some people from some countries have to follow the rules, but others can run across the border, including criminals. The point of Trump is to stop illegal immigration, not legal, so that everyone has to follow the same rules and the criminals are not let in.

The US-Mexico border is the most crossed international border in the world, with over 350 million legal crossings a year. It is not like no one is let through legally and the Mexicans need a chance too. There is plenty of legal movement, in fact currently the country where the most legal permanent immigrants come is Mexico. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#Ethnicity

16. Aug 8, 2015

### MidgetDwarf

Most of the people who come here legally are criminals. That's the whole poimt. Do not get brainwashed by Trumps fear mongering. Trump loves illegal immigration. Especially when they are working for his companies, building his over priced, slum lord dwellings.

As I mentioned previously, the majority of people who come here legally, can fall into 2 categories. Students and people who supported dictatorships.

The large number of crimes in America are not caused by illegals, rather from the domestic legal population.

The point of trump, which he has none, is appealing to the Republican voters. Republican voters tend to be conservative and especially anti immigration. Just politicians talking.

17. Aug 8, 2015

### William White

I'll add a foreign perspective to this.

The UK is also seeing enormous immigration (both legal which is running at 1/2 million per year, and illegal, which is anybody's guess - nobody knows).

Immigration occurs because of disparities in income, life chances, health, war, social strife.

I truly believe we are at the cusp of one of humanities great migrations. This will be talked about by historians in hundreds of years time.

The problems arising due to the mass movements of people (problems for host countries, where the poorest in that host are the ones fighting for lowest paid jobs and social services with immigrants; and problems for the old country, which is depleted of its young - its most precious resource) did not come out of a clear blue sky.

First world countries have, for too long, followed economic policies and foreign policies that were and are weighted far too much in the favour of themselves.

This is understandable - hardly anybody will vote of a politician that is fair; people vote for themselves.

And of course, there is the law that politicians call unitended consequences; those with common sense call the bleeding obvious.

If you go into a country and cause havoc, people will be in a state of havoc and want to leave. The recent "interventions" in Libya have directly led to a humanitarian crisis which is seeing thousands drown in the Med trying to get to Europe.

Mass immigration will not be controlled by walls; it will be controlled - or rather the need will be minimised - by addressing and fixing the real reasons why millions of people need to move home.

Last edited: Aug 8, 2015
18. Aug 11, 2015

### mheslep

First world? Has it not now, or ever, been the case the all countries pursued their own interests, as they determined them to be?

19. Aug 11, 2015

### William White

I think the difference is, that we now live in a more global economy than ever before; and first world countries, by pursuing the policies that they have done; have failed to foresee the consquences.

The reason I say first-world, rather than all; is because first world countries weilded power and influence over poorer countries; and used that power to exploit the resources of those poorer countries and created huge differentials in wealth.

If you have such a huge difference, just across a border; of course people will move.

20. Aug 19, 2015

### Finny

Report: Foreign workers depress U.S. wages, cut a $93,000 salary by$36,000

"....According to an analysis of the country's H-1B visa program, companies can cut high-tech salaries for a programer $36,000, from$93,000 to \$57,000....It is no wonder that H-1B workers are concentrated in high-wage locations of the country..........,"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...ashington Secrets - 08/19/15&utm_medium=email