The approaching Honduran migrant caravan

[Ibrahim]

No I don't wonder about any of that. I wonder why you think the border will be secured.

What would a secure border look like? I strongly doubt there will ever be enough political consensus to accomplish what you're imagining, but exactly what are you imagining?


At this point anything seems preferable to the taxpayer-funded child abuse program currently in operation.

[Simple Minded]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... rrier.html


Holy Cow! POTUS is reading the emails I sent to him!!!!!

[Parodite]

Spengli Goldman is right when he is right:

President Trump Calls for America to Recruit 'the Smartest People in the World'

[Ibrahim]

Spengli Goldman is right when he is right:

President Trump Calls for America to Recruit 'the Smartest People in the World'

Come for the education.

Stay for the economic opportunities and help us remain a powerhouse of innovation.

Try to ignore the rising tide of racial hatred and political division. It'll probably be fine



Spengler is part of the dying breed of conservatives trying to be high-brow intellectuals, but when you break most of his work down its not far from what a caveman might suggest. "Need more baby from good people, less baby from bad people. Smart people stay in tribe, keep tribe strong. No let bad people into tribe. Tribe need classical music education for children." Well, maybe not the last one.

[Doc]

Bill Clinton changed the rules of Chinese students when he was president. Limiting the amount of time they could spend in the US to two years. AS a result many Chinese students would immediately upon entering the US apply to Canada to immigrate there. AS a result there was a joke at the time in Canada "What do you call a Chinese PHD in Toronto?" A) "Dishwasher"

I am sure Clinton got a big raise from his Chinese bosses, or something like that, for preventing Chinese students in the US from staying and living here.

Now I am all for getting the best and the brightest to immigrate to the US **if** there is a job to be filled. In the past those jobs were farming in the Midwest. Today they are STEM jobs. However when I look at thing like Disney did to their employees hiring foreigners to directly take over thier jobs and requiring to train their replacement or get no severance pay all to save Disney a few bucks. When that happens I view it the same way that I view the death penalty. Years ago the Forensic pathologist of the state of Illinois Munged 100's of DNA tests for death row convicts. Leaving much more that a shadow of a doubt. There is no excuse for that and the only remedy is to end the death penalty. The same for H1B visas.

If someone has a recognized accredited degree in STEM(Preferably an advanced degree) and they want to immigrate to the US then by all means. If they simply recruited by a company looking to save money then no. IE No more H1B visas. If their relative got into the US and that is the sole reason they are seeking to immigrate on, the answer should still be no. Spouses and children of the former but not one else. We don't need more sociologists We don't need more artists and they don't need to come to the US to fill those jobs. And we definitely don't need criminals.

[Parodite]

Spengli Goldman is right when he is right:

President Trump Calls for America to Recruit 'the Smartest People in the World'

Come for the education.

Stay for the economic opportunities and help us remain a powerhouse of innovation.

Yes, why not. The US has always been and still is a popular country to go to and live a life with good economic opportunities and the type of life you want without risking persecution, speak your mind freely (under slight pressure these days..but still), pursue an education. A winning formula. A wealthy society also has more resources to help out its own people who struggle at the bottom, flee from war-zones or persecution asking for asylum. Illegal immigration isn't good for anybody though.

Try to ignore the rising tide of racial hatred and political division. It'll probably be fine

The rising tide of perceiving racism where there isn't, in general where facts matter less than they should.

[Simple Minded]

Spengli Goldman is right when he is right:

President Trump Calls for America to Recruit 'the Smartest People in the World'

Come for the education.

Stay for the economic opportunities and help us remain a powerhouse of innovation.

Yes, why not. The US has always been and still is a popular country to go to and live a life with good economic opportunities and the type of life you want without risking persecution, speak your mind freely (under slight pressure these days..but still), pursue an education. A winning formula. A wealthy society also has more resources to help out its own people who struggle at the bottom, flee from war-zones or persecution asking for asylum. Illegal immigration isn't good for anybody though.

Try to ignore the rising tide of racial hatred and political division. It'll probably be fine

The rising tide of perceiving racism where there isn't, in general where facts matter less than they should.

Well said Parodite. More fun to yell "Racist!" and end the discussion than to actually participate in a discussion of real issues. Like problems caused by illegal immigration and the dolts who want to be in charge, but not really accept the responsibility of administration.

Securing a border or a perimeter is an incredibly easy thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that has been done in so many places throughout history. Why the powers that be don't want to do so now, is a very different discussion.

Everyone understands the concepts of merit, character, and competence when buying lunch, selecting a mechanic, or hiring a babysitter. But when it comes to immigration, discussion of merit, character, and competence are off the table because suddenly evaluating people on those characteristics is racist?

Who said anything about skin color or country of origin? Only the True Believer who is adhering to their religion brings up skin color or country of origin in these discussions.

[Ibrahim]

The rising tide of perceiving racism where there isn't, in general where facts matter less than they should.

Facts should matter more. I guess the white power rallies where people were murdered, the mass shootings by neo-nazis, and the concentration camps along the border for brown children were "fake news."

Certainly nothing to worry highly-skilled immigrants considering where to settle and start a family.

A wealthy society also has more resources to help out its own people who struggle at the bottom,

Or wealth could be hoarded by the elite. Depends on the political culture of the country in question.

AS a result many Chinese students would immediately upon entering the US apply to Canada to immigrate there. AS a result there was a joke at the time in Canada "What do you call a Chinese PHD in Toronto?" A) "Dishwasher"

Never heard that one.

Everyone understands the concepts of merit, character, and competence when buying lunch, selecting a mechanic, or hiring a babysitter. But when it comes to immigration, discussion of merit, character, and competence are off the table because suddenly evaluating people on those characteristics is racist?

I view routine immigration and the migration of people fleeing violence of extreme poverty as two separate issues. I don't object to picking "the best and the brightest" under normal circumstances, my point was that they might not find the political culture in America as appealing as it was a few years ago.

The philosophical question of what to do with very large numbers of refugees or asylum seekers is another matter entirely, but it seems like the present administration has found an answer.

[noddy]

I view routine immigration and the migration of people fleeing violence of extreme poverty as two separate issues.

according to this https://worldpoverty.io/ half a billion people live in extreme poverty and according to this http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/ ... -and-stats 80% of the world lives in poverty thats getting worse.

I cant see poverty as a relevent factor for immigration, their is a never ending supply of folks who want a better life.

sure, their are some feel good stories and good outcomes to be had taking a small amount of the immigration pool from those areas but thats a secondary concern on the primary concern of the hosts country ability to house, school and employ any immigrants it takes in.

once we add environmental concerns like water and deforestation and food supply, some folks are arguing most of the world is already at peak humanity anyway and we all need to change lifestyles to one room apartments eating a small bowl of carbs and veges,all for the good of the poor people.

its not going to happen.

[Ibrahim]

The question of whether or not extreme poverty is justification for asylum is philosophical and moral one. I'm just saying that the the wretchedly poor fleeing gang violence in Guatemala aren't the same part of the immigration debate as whether your economy would benefit more from an Indian engineer or a Sri Lankan doctor. Refugees aren't competing with economic immigrants, they are separate issues.

[noddy]

if you take unscheduled immigrants in large numbers without appropriate housing and services and government assistance you get ghettos and shanty towns and horror stories.

all this only works in an orderly, planned manner.

[Doc]

The question of whether or not extreme poverty is justification for asylum is philosophical and moral one. I'm just saying that the the wretchedly poor fleeing gang violence in Guatemala aren't the same part of the immigration debate as whether your economy would benefit more from an Indian engineer or a Sri Lankan doctor. Refugees aren't competing with economic immigrants, they are separate issues.

Then refugee camps should be set up to house and feed them until they can return to Guatemala. AS is currently the case since Mexico now agrees to allow them to stay in Mexico until they can enter the US or op to return home.

[Simple Minded]

I view routine immigration and the migration of people fleeing violence of extreme poverty as two separate issues. I don't object to picking "the best and the brightest" under normal circumstances, my point was that they might not find the political culture in America as appealing as it was a few years ago.

It is only two separate issues in the most theoretical, intellectualized, sense of discussion. Reality is different. It boils down to competition for resources.

People can virtue signal all they want about how "we are good people who want to save others," or controlling immigration "is not who we are as a country," or "we are a nation of immigrants," right up until the time comes to decide who gets to sleep in the top bunk or who gets to eat a limited number of hamburgers, or fill a limited number of seats in the class room or who gets to see the doctor first, etc.

I go back to my litmus test for the virtue signaling generic do-gooder. How many unvetted, illegal aliens are sleeping in their house, eating food they buy, wearing clothes they buy, and taking medicine they buy?

When that question gets answered, it turns out that each of us is as racist as Trump, who is as racist as Obama, who is as racist as Pelosi, who is as racist as Schumer, who is a racist as Horge Ramos, Geraldo Rivera, Jesse Jackson, etc. All of the above live in houses with walls and locks on the doors. Weird! I wonder why?

Talk is cheap, free actually. Resources aren't. Someone else can always do more. But that last, close parking spot is mine! I was here first.

[Simple Minded]

if you take unscheduled immigrants in large numbers without appropriate housing and services and government assistance you get ghettos and shanty towns and horror stories.

all this only works in an orderly, planned manner.

Yep. Everyone understands competition for resources when it comes to the "stuff" they are interested in, or stuff they profess to own.

Only when it comes to "other people can do more" virtue signaling, does it become all sunshine and lollipops.

Thankfully, we all share the common ground of being selfish bastards protecting our own turf...... Whoa! That's the orderly planned manner we devised that makes the system work. I think people used to call it "property rights" back in the day.

[Ibrahim]

I view routine immigration and the migration of people fleeing violence of extreme poverty as two separate issues. I don't object to picking "the best and the brightest" under normal circumstances, my point was that they might not find the political culture in America as appealing as it was a few years ago.

It is only two separate issues in the most theoretical, intellectualized, sense of discussion. Reality is different. It boils down to competition for resources.

People can virtue signal all they want about how "we are good people who want to save others," or controlling immigration "is not who we are as a country," or "we are a nation of immigrants," right up until the time comes to decide who gets to sleep in the top bunk or who gets to eat a limited number of hamburgers, or fill a limited number of seats in the class room or who gets to see the doctor first, etc.

I go back to my litmus test for the virtue signaling generic do-gooder. How many unvetted, illegal aliens are sleeping in their house, eating food they buy, wearing clothes they buy, and taking medicine they buy?

When that question gets answered, it turns out that each of us is as racist as Trump, who is as racist as Obama, who is as racist as Pelosi, who is as racist as Schumer, who is a racist as Horge Ramos, Geraldo Rivera, Jesse Jackson, etc. All of the above live in houses with walls and locks on the doors. Weird! I wonder why?

Talk is cheap, free actually. Resources aren't. Someone else can always do more. But that last, close parking spot is mine! I was here first.

This is one of the more honest takes on the current hostility to migrants that I've seen. "Don't let them in, I don't want to share." This impulse, combined with something else more existential, is why I think all of the political right across the developed world is so hostile to refugees.

But the idea that "we" would rather have trained workers with in-demand skills over refugees is an irrelevant one. People choosing to immigrate for pragmatic reasons, and the states willing to accept immigrants for pragmatic reasons, will rationally seek out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Refugees are another matter entirely.

[Ibrahim]

The question of whether or not extreme poverty is justification for asylum is philosophical and moral one. I'm just saying that the the wretchedly poor fleeing gang violence in Guatemala aren't the same part of the immigration debate as whether your economy would benefit more from an Indian engineer or a Sri Lankan doctor. Refugees aren't competing with economic immigrants, they are separate issues.

Then refugee camps should be set up to house and feed them until they can return to Guatemala. AS is currently the case since Mexico now agrees to allow them to stay in Mexico until they can enter the US or op to return home.

That would be preferable to the present arrangement or the proposed "wall" scenario. Its what is currently being done for much larger numbers of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Turkey, for example.


My main issue right now is the level of inhumane treatment towards migrants. I'm not as tied up with the idea that everybody should be able to move anywhere and become a legal resident or citizen anywhere they manage to walk to. But the least we could do is not torment them or let them die.

[Ibrahim]

if you take unscheduled immigrants in large numbers without appropriate housing and services and government assistance you get ghettos and shanty towns and horror stories.

all this only works in an orderly, planned manner.

I'm all for planning it better, certainly.

[Simple Minded]

This is one of the more honest takes on the current hostility to migrants that I've seen. "Don't let them in, I don't want to share." This impulse, combined with something else more existential, is why I think all of the political right across the developed world is so hostile to refugees.

But the idea that "we" would rather have trained workers with in-demand skills over refugees is an irrelevant one. People choosing to immigrate for pragmatic reasons, and the states willing to accept immigrants for pragmatic reasons, will rationally seek out a mutually beneficial arrangement. Refugees are another matter entirely.

Doesn't seem like a left-right issue to me. Hard to make a distinction between right and left on this issue. As I have said before, I don't know any lefties taking unvetted, illegal immigrants into their home and treating them like family. Distinctions between left and right on this issue are meaningless. Especially those in the government who work or live behind walls guarded by armed security paid for by the taxpayer.

But, if one must couch this discussion in right/left terminology, why the does the left hate black people and poor people so much? https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018 ... n-borders/


The issue for me, and I think for many, is when someone far away, who does not have to deal with the consequences of their decrees, says that someone from another land has more rights than you, so "we" can settle them in your town, and "you" figure out how to deal with the problems. "You can do more to deal with a problem we could easily solve but yet don't want to solve." This mess has been in place for decades.

Here's a bunch of people with perhaps no medical records, perhaps don't speak English, and (in some instances) have no knowledge of Western culture or values. Talk to some doctors, teachers, police, etc. about local problems. They don't speak of a national problem, they talk about local problems. The refugees/immigrants are not faceless and nameless people to them. They are right in front of them. Where are the masters of the universe when it comes time to change a dirty diaper?

Notice the mansions surrounded by walls and protected by armed security of the elites, Hollywood, DC, and others. They could easily be housing and supporting dozens of illegal immigrants and refugees in their own homes. Why aren't they?

It is like members of the Kennedy clan saying "the rich should pay their fair share" (of course they should, by definition), while benefitting from trust funds for generations to avoid paying taxes. The language becomes meaningless.

[Simple Minded]

Here is a Joe Sixpack perspective, that takes the discussion out of the Left vs. Right paradigm.

Equal treatment under the law. Justice as blind.

Oddly enough, once upon a time, many Americans expected the elected officials in DC to believe in the principle of "blind justice" and "equal treatment under the law." Probably not so much now......

[Ibrahim]

Doesn't seem like a left-right issue to me. Hard to make a distinction between right and left on this issue. As I have said before, I don't know any lefties taking unvetted, illegal immigrants into their home and treating them like family.

I was involved with an organization that was helping settle Syrian refugees in Canada, and I can tell you that I've absolutely seen people willing to let refugees live in their house. I would also agree that it wasn't a left-right divide, anecdotally speaking.

But, if one must couch this discussion in right/left terminology, why the does the left hate black people and poor people so much? https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018 ... n-borders/

This was an interesting article that leftists got mad over, but in my view it accurately explains why historically the labor-left was anti-immigration and why the Wall Street/Yale/Robber Baron types always wanted to flood the country with as much cheap labor as possible. That said, I personally don't think its morally tenable to let people die because you want to hold a bugger stick at the next round of collective bargaining. Its worth talking about politically because the populist right are making some of the same appeals that the New Dealer labor left did 80 years ago.

The issue for me, and I think for many, is when someone far away, who does not have to deal with the consequences of their decrees, says that someone from another land has more rights than you, so "we" can settle them in your town, and "you" figure out how to deal with the problems. "You can do more to deal with a problem we could easily solve but yet don't want to solve." This mess has been in place for decades.

This is the populist appeal against immigration, and I understand why its appealing. But as I said before, I think you have to ask yourself an even deeper question: are other people fundamentally different from me? Are other people inherently inferior to me? If yes, then by all means let them starve or die or drown. If no, then we have to help them to the best of our ability. Having decided to help, I'm all for doing so in the most logical and efficient way possible, because we will have already agreed that there must be help and it must be humane.

The only arguments I can't stand are the political ones about how "it won't sell" to a given population. For starters, that's a defeatist attitude that, if applied to other formerly unpopular issues means that we'd still have slavery and the divine right of kings. But also its a way of avoiding the central moral argument. If you believe something is fundamentally right or wrong then you hammer away at it socially and politically, you don't just write it off like a box office bomb, better luck next time.

But there are also a lot of people out there who don't think the lives of other people matter, and honestly I'm not sure how to approach them.

[Doc]

NYC Mayor DeBlasio says the city will now pay for health care for Illegal aliens. Est to be $100 million per year.

In other news rats infest NYC housing projects. City does nothing.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/on-air/as-se ... 52781.html

[Simple Minded]

Doesn't seem like a left-right issue to me. Hard to make a distinction between right and left on this issue. As I have said before, I don't know any lefties taking unvetted, illegal immigrants into their home and treating them like family.

I was involved with an organization that was helping settle Syrian refugees in Canada, and I can tell you that I've absolutely seen people willing to let refugees live in their house. I would also agree that it wasn't a left-right divide, anecdotally speaking.

But, if one must couch this discussion in right/left terminology, why the does the left hate black people and poor people so much? https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018 ... n-borders/

This was an interesting article that leftists got mad over, but in my view it accurately explains why historically the labor-left was anti-immigration and why the Wall Street/Yale/Robber Baron types always wanted to flood the country with as much cheap labor as possible. That said, I personally don't think its morally tenable to let people die because you want to hold a bugger stick at the next round of collective bargaining. Its worth talking about politically because the populist right are making some of the same appeals that the New Dealer labor left did 80 years ago.

The issue for me, and I think for many, is when someone far away, who does not have to deal with the consequences of their decrees, says that someone from another land has more rights than you, so "we" can settle them in your town, and "you" figure out how to deal with the problems. "You can do more to deal with a problem we could easily solve but yet don't want to solve." This mess has been in place for decades.

This is the populist appeal against immigration, and I understand why its appealing. But as I said before, I think you have to ask yourself an even deeper question: are other people fundamentally different from me? Are other people inherently inferior to me? If yes, then by all means let them starve or die or drown. If no, then we have to help them to the best of our ability. Having decided to help, I'm all for doing so in the most logical and efficient way possible, because we will have already agreed that there must be help and it must be humane.

The only arguments I can't stand are the political ones about how "it won't sell" to a given population. For starters, that's a defeatist attitude that, if applied to other formerly unpopular issues means that we'd still have slavery and the divine right of kings. But also its a way of avoiding the central moral argument. If you believe something is fundamentally right or wrong then you hammer away at it socially and politically, you don't just write it off like a box office bomb, better luck next time.

But there are also a lot of people out there who don't think the lives of other people matter, and honestly I'm not sure how to approach them.

Well said Ibrahim. Kudos to those people taking in refugees. I think there is a difference between a refugees and an unvetted person. When resources are limited, decisions have to be made who gets helped, and who can't be helped. Obviously you are involved with an disciplined organization, and not advocating open border chaos.

We're still stuck at the definition of "we" and "them." Tough to try to convince Fred to give up pizza one night a month for his family and send the unspent money to help the poor "others." There is the "we" of my family and the "we" of the country/nation/planet. DiFi, Pelosi, Schumer, Cher, Joy Behar, Obama, Bushes and others who love to be visible advocates of "compassion" could probably comfortably give away 6-7 figures of income/wealth each year to show that their money is where their mouth is.

I've been in many dinner discussions at my liberal friend's expensive houses listening to them badmouth conservatives. When I point out their incomes, and net worths are well above average, and their refusal to donate the above average portion of their income and wealth to support the causes they claim they believe in, just might be taken as some as a signal that they don't really believe in what they say, but are instead "conservative right-wingers"...... they get kinda quiet.

WHOA! Maybe that is why they say the things they do? So the casual observer will know they're not REALLY Conservative Right Wingers, in spite of the similarity in their self-centered behavior and lifestyle?

Damn surprising how labels apply so well to "them," but should go away when it comes to evaluation of "me."

As the very rich in DC and Hollywood demonstrate, there is the concept of compassion in the name of "we," and then there is all the stuff that belongs to the individual "me's."

Control of the border in accordance with rule of law is one issue. Compassion when dealing with the poor or refugees is another. One would like to believe that politics has no place in either. But, their primary sense of identity comes from their occupation as politicians.

Plenty of third world neighborhoods exist within the US, and have existed for decades. Discussion continues regarding causes. Should the locals get priority due to the fact that they are citizens and already belong to the group "we?" How well have the compassionate politicians managed/helped them?

Lots of groups of "we" in a population of over 300 million. I doubt the sense of competition for resources is going away anytime soon.

My litmus test continues to be how Fred spends his time and money, not what Fred preaches.

[Ibrahim]

I see what you are saying, but at the same time I don't think who is or isn't a hypocrite should influence our own decisions. If refugees are drowning in the Med I'm not going to be opposed to helping them because some celebrity advocate for refugees lives in a mansion and never interacts with anyone who isn't their employee or another rich person. It just doesn't matter to the actual issue.

Its like Mr. Perfect's obsession with what Democrat or leftist said, therefore excusing something else a Republican or conservative said. It makes no difference, morally or rationally. Its the "horse race" model of politics that is on the brink of destroying destroying democratic institutions in the US, and already has in some other countries. On top of that people are dying and children are being abused by the state while the political class and their cheerleading supporters just point fingers at one another.

[noddy]

If i make a flimsy raft and die in the ocean their is no wider discussion on the inherit immorality of whoever didnt save me.

people just make jokes about what an 1d10t I was and then ignore it.

I dont expect any different in regards myself, why would I assume some random guy from another country should get more than that ?

[Simple Minded]

I see what you are saying, but at the same time I don't think who is or isn't a hypocrite should influence our own decisions. If refugees are drowning in the Med I'm not going to be opposed to helping them because some celebrity advocate for refugees lives in a mansion and never interacts with anyone who isn't their employee or another rich person. It just doesn't matter to the actual issue.

Its like Mr. Perfect's obsession with what Democrat or leftist said, therefore excusing something else a Republican or conservative said. It makes no difference, morally or rationally. Its the "horse race" model of politics that is on the brink of destroying destroying democratic institutions in the US, and already has in some other countries. On top of that people are dying and children are being abused by the state while the political class and their cheerleading supporters just point fingers at one another.

I agree. I think we may be talking past each other. The hypocrites don't influence my actions.

My point is you have every right to do whatever you want with your own personal resources. When the charity checks are drawn from the personal checking account of Ibrahim, I admire and salute you.

If your idea of helping people is to be an activist to influence govt policy, I say activists should realize that govt has no resources. Govt helps group A or individual A by confiscating resources from individuals B, C, D, etc. Don't be surprised when B, C, D, etc don't view Fred's activism as sincere if Fred did not personally ante up his own funds, or wonders why Fred's priorities as an activist should supersede their priorities as individuals regarding their own personal resources.

When the charity checks are drawn from Govt accounts, against the will of many citizens, one must make a very strong case for how one prioritizes causes and beneficiaries. Most activists are profoundly ignorant of this simple fact.

The questions I would have for activists waving the flag of "I'm a good guy, I support the politicians who want to help the refugees seeking asylum in the name of humanitarianism," are very simple questions:
- Why are you prioritizing helping non-US citizens over US citizens with funds paid by US taxpayers?
- What are your criteria for prioritizing one group of humans over other groups?
- Are you a racist or a nationalist?
- Why do you think the rights of law breakers should take precedence over the rights of law abiders?
- Have you no respect for rule of law?

To date, I have not heard politicians of any stripe make the case for which Americans are going to get less resources so that those resources can be diverted to non-Americans.

In regards to Mr. Perfect, when he tells me what a republican thinks, or what a democrat thinks, it is the same to me as Jesse Jackson telling me what a black person thinks or what a white person thinks. Or any other person who claims to be the spokesperson for group X (dems, repubs, righties, lefties, Merkins, Yurps, Canucks, etc.) and therefore considers themselves an oracle to define group X or all the groups non-X.

"Thanks Mr. group X-pert, but when I want to know what an X or a non-X thinks, I'll go ask one or 20. I'm sure they will be willing to tell me what they think."