The Next President is...

[MooseAg03]

Just saying they are flooding our country because of our broken immigration system is a joke. Watch a few of the Numbers USA videos about our population growth just due to the LEGAL immigration numbers of around 1 million per year. It is unsustainable growth and our population will balloon to over 600 million in just a few decades. I’m sorry, but we cannot let in every person who just wants a better life.

We’re better served helping them increase the standard of living in their own countries. What good does it do anyone to bring our economy down over the long term? Our unfunded liabilities due to social programs alone is going to bankrupt our country, we can’t keep adding thousands to those programs each year and have any hope of staying afloat.

[raimius]

13 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:

Just saying they are flooding our country because of our broken immigration system is a joke. Watch a few of the Numbers USA videos about our population growth just due to the LEGAL immigration numbers of around 1 million per year. It is unsustainable growth and our population will balloon to over 600 million in just a few decades. I’m sorry, but we cannot let in every person who just wants a better life.

We’re better served helping them increase the standard of living in their own countries. What good does it do anyone to bring our economy down over the long term? Our unfunded liabilities due to social programs alone is going to bankrupt our country, we can’t keep adding thousands to those programs each year and have any hope of staying afloat.

Our population tripled between 1860 and 1920, and again between 1920 and now.  I'm not sure how you conclude that doubling it in the next few decades will overload the US.  The upper Great Plains isn't exactly crowded...

[nsplayr]

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

How about you respond to his question regarding income taxes?...you're intelligent enough to know the difference between income tax vs FICA taxes.

The IRS assumes that a large number of tax filers using ITINs are undocumented immigrants, and in 2015 the IRS received 4.4 million federal income tax returns using ITINs rather than SSNs, and those tax filers paid $23.6 billion in income taxes, which includes FICA, federal, and state income taxes.

Undocumented immigrants are specifically encouraged to file federal income taxes because it is a sign of "good moral character" that can be considered in the future if they become eligible to apply for permanent status.

Here's my BL: nitpicking these numbers is kinda small-ball. If you're primarily concerned with money, like I said, let's bring all the undocumented workers out of the shadows, give them some kind of legal status for work, and then they will be subject to the exact same taxes as everyone else without having to play any paperwork funny games. They'd likely still being ineligible for many of the benefits that taxes enable, so overall it's a huge net plus for our social welfare programs. In fact we're already there when it comes to FICA taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay quite a bit of FICA taxes and receive zero benefits, which greatly helps the system. It goes without saying that having a steady stream of younger, healthier, working-age folks paying into our social welfare systems while extracting very few benefits from those systems is an actuary's dream.

But I suspect that's not the solution you're looking for, so answering the money questions are not going to change a lot of minds IMHO. I'm happy to talk details if you're genuinely curious, but folks are mainly concerned with the impact of immigration on their cultural identity and seeing a place for people like themselves and their children in an American society they see as changing too fast or in ways they are uncomfortable with. Those concerns aren't unfounded, don't automatically make someone a racist (paging many on the left), deserve respect, and can't be addressed by numbers.

Those cultural identity concerns need to be addressed by talking about shared values, how everyone has a bright future in our evolving and changing society, and by painting a hopefully, forward-looking message.

My message on immigration is that in a nation of immigrants, build by immigrants, where The American Dream is that no one is bound by class or race or religion, immigration will continue to be a great source of strength and vitality, enabling the US to outlast and surpass any wanna-be competitors on the global stage. Every American and everyone around the world who aspires to be an American has a place in a truly democratic, just, and compassionate multicultural, multiracial and harmonious society. That dream has never been achieved in human history before, and it's a worthy goal for an ambitious, still-young nation and we have the best chance by far of anyone hoping to achieve it.

Chris Hayes and Ezra Klein has a great podcast on this exact topic.

//off soapbox //

Like I said before, if you'd rather nitpick tax numbers and frame this challenge in the language of infestations, rapists, gangs, drugs and violence, I'm more than happy to let you keep pitching that message.

Governor Gillespe in Virginia send his thanks to the super PACs for all those really effective MS-13 ads /sarcasm. (Ed Gillespe is a decent guy and generally moderate Republican, but he ran a very right-wing, immigration-heavy campaign for governor in my favorite commonwealth and he lost to the real-life governor, Democrat Ralph Northam).

That fact that many Democratic Party leaders are dickless in their messaging and small-minded in their policy vision around immigration (among many other things) is not an indication of the lack of potential for progress on important issues going forward.

Edited June 27, 2018 by nsplayr

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, MooseAg03 said:

Watch a few of the Numbers USA videos about our population growth just due to the LEGAL immigration numbers of around 1 million per year. It is unsustainable growth and our population will balloon to over 600 million in just a few decades.

- Numbers USA is explicitly an anti-immigration interest group that has all the incentives in the world to show you numbers and messaging that will make you vote for leaders who want less immigration. I'd recommend finding much more neutral data sources, like the census bureau, if you want to talk numbers.

- Census growth projections for the total US population have the numbers at 420m in 2060.

- The number of undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the country right now is lower than in 2007, reflecting negative growth in that population over the last decade.

- Recent US population growth rates have been historically slow, meaning we're in a period of slower-than-average growth.

🤷‍♂️

Edited June 27, 2018 by nsplayr

[MooseAg03]

Forgive me if I don’t trust numbers given to us by the government that can’t even accurately report unemployment. Apologies, the projection for 600 million was for 2100. The video was from 2010, so maybe birth rates have slowed because they forecast about 30 million more than the census bureau for 2060.

If you think cramming people into our country is only about space you’re pretty naive. How many of us grow food? What about water usage in the western half of the country? Look at the drought issues in California and Lake Meade. If we need a certain level of legal immigration for population sustainment, fine. But we should pay attention to the growth, because if growth doesn’t taper off eventually all of our cities will look like Shanghai.

[MooseAg03]

Oh and they aren’t anti-immigration, as they say on their website: they support immigration policies to protect all Americans, whether they were born in our country or not. We’re all in the same boat, they just think the numbers should be lower.

 

Numbers USA was founded in 1996 after Democrat Barbara Jordan and her US Commission on Immigration Reform suggested cutting immigration levels to around 550k per year for sustainment. Also President Clinton’s Task Force on Population and Consumption suggested even deeper cuts to annual immigration to avoid adding hundreds of millions to our population by 2100.

 

I miss old William Jefferson, his positions in the 1990s are far more Conservative than most Republicans today on immigration. Remember when there were sensible Democrats who didn’t all call for open borders and violent opposition to their political opponents?

 

 

[HU&W]

Economically, population growth is greatly preferable to population decline.

[brickhistory]

The US is a nation of immigrants.  There isn't a qualifier of "illegal."  If you come here without our permission, you aren't an immigrant.  You are illegal present in this country.  We should get to decide who we want to let in; you don't cross the velvet rope just because you want to. 

To grant any sort of preference to someone sneaking in absolutely nullifies our status as a nation of laws.  

It also give a huge middle finger to all those who have gone through the lengthy process of immigrating here legally.  A system, however cumbersome (it is government, after all), that is designed to ensure some basic assimilation characteristics - grasp of English, knowledge of US history, etc.  One designed to give at least a modicum of a level playing field so that the new legal citizen can try to take advantage of the American Dream.  Those who came here legally worked to make it happen.  They get it; work and you help make your own luck.

Those coming in illegally have decided they are more important and are aided and abetted by those who enable them.  Starting your stay in the US illegally should not be rewarded.

On a personal level, I don't blame 'em.  I'd want a better life as well.  But if me and however many millions of my friends sneak in, we begin to make large areas of this country just like that from which we fled.

 

[MooseAg03]

Usually I despise the Republican Party because they are spineless. At least they are starting to speak the truth...

[Stoker]

On 6/26/2018 at 5:13 PM, BashiChuni said:

as a nation of laws it just blows my mind that half of the country has zero issue with people coming here illegally. 

Illegal immigrant does not equal immigrant. That’s where the left and press are getting it wrong. 

No one is entitled to come here illegally. But that’s sure how the left sees it. 

 

For most people who wish to come to the United States, there is simply no option to come here legally. In my opinion, if someone wants to pursue to American dream so badly that they leave everything they've ever known, put their lives into the hands of untrustworthy smugglers, to come here and work in fast food, landscaping, and contracting, I say, let them. That's more American a thing to do than what most of the people in this country have ever done in their lives. More succinctly, "an unjust law is no law at all."

Practically, you are never going to be able to "defeat" illegal immigration. The incentives are too great. Migrants are routinely murdered, sold into sex slavery, or left for dead in the desert trying to get here. If that doesn't deter them, what do you think the government can possibly do? People claim to only be against illegal immigrants, legal immigration, but I rarely hear them calling for increased legal immigration (which is the one surefire way to reduce legal immigration, without government spending billions on mostly ineffective border "security").

[pawnman]

3 minutes ago, Stoker said:

For most people who wish to come to the United States, there is simply no option to come here legally. In my opinion, if someone wants to pursue to American dream so badly that they leave everything they've ever known, put their lives into the hands of untrustworthy smugglers, to come here and work in fast food, landscaping, and contracting, I say, let them. That's more American a thing to do than what most of the people in this country have ever done in their lives. More succinctly, "an unjust law is no law at all."

Practically, you are never going to be able to "defeat" illegal immigration. The incentives are too great. Migrants are routinely murdered, sold into sex slavery, or left for dead in the desert trying to get here. If that doesn't deter them, what do you think the government can possibly do? People claim to only be against illegal immigrants, legal immigration, but I rarely hear them calling for increased legal immigration (which is the one surefire way to reduce legal immigration, without government spending billions on mostly ineffective border "security").

I agree.  We need immigration reform, and bad.  We should be striving to make it faster, easier, and cheaper for people who want to come here legally.  Make the barriers to legal entry low enough, and the only people who will try to come here illegally will be the criminals...which makes it easier to police the borders.

 

[BashiChuni]

Sure then make legal immigration easier. I’d be all about it

but we can’t take in everyone who wants to come here so where do you draw the line

Edited June 28, 2018 by BashiChuni

[ClearedHot]

15 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Sure then make legal immigration easier. I’d be all about it

but we can’t take in everyone who wants to come here so where do you draw the line

100% agree...this bullshit "Undocumented Workers"narrative is pure tripe, we are either a nation of laws or we are not. 

I have compassion and embrace LEGAL immigration, 99% of us are immigrants and the backbone of this country was built on the great melting pot.  However, throwing a giant progressive hand wave at all the criminals who came here ILLEGALLY is a giant FU to those who stand in line and try to come here the right way.  Progressives have decided they don't want to enforce immigration law, what laws do you ignore next?

Very interesting video below about immigration and poverty.

 

 

 

[MooseAg03]

How are 99% of us immigrants? It bugs me when people say that we are a nation of immigrants. Actually the vast majority of us were born here and so were a lot of our ancestors. Those ancestors BUILT this nation into what it is today, we didn’t just wander up the shores of the east coast and find the greatest country on earth.

My last relative who came to the US was my great grandfather on my mom’s side in the 1890s. My oldest immigrant relatives settled in Texas in the 1780s. I agree that we should continue a certain level of legal immigration, but what do you have left when those immigrants plant roots and have families here? Americans. Not immigrants. My family assimilated as fast as they could, some were simple farmers just trying to make a living and others ran businesses that helped shape the oil industry in the 20th century. After that first generation that stepped off the boat dies, their family are no longer immigrants.

[brickhistory]

I believe a wise man (and political party) made much ado about the phrase, "You didn't build that."

That and a current series of beer ad seem to make a lot of noise about "it's not where you came from but what you're made of."

Never mind that large helping of "illegal" in the composition stew...

[Stoker]

17 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Sure then make legal immigration easier. I’d be all about it

but we can’t take in everyone who wants to come here so where do you draw the line

Why not? We managed for the first hundred and fifty years or so of this country's history, at times when we were a lot smaller geographically. We managed to absorb roughly a million immigrants a year around 1900, at a time when that was about one percent of the population.

A country isn't a pie, more people doesn't mean less pie for you. It means there's more people making pies.

 

[TreeA10]

How many disenfranchised, oppressed, or impoverished people are there on the planet? 1 billion? 2 billion? How many do we take in? 50? 1 million? 100 Million? All of them? I'm just looking for a starting point in the debate. 

We need immigrants but not controlling who and how many will not benefit anyone in the long run. Regarding pies, the American taxpayer is currently paying $113 Billion a year to make pies for those that show up to the party without a pie. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by TreeA10

[SurelySerious]

That’s an important point. The responsibility of the national government is to its citizens, not all of humanity. A purely open border ends up serving neither the citizens, nor even the global community, really. 

[HeloDude]

43 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

That’s an important point. The responsibility of the national government is to its citizens, not all of humanity. A purely open border ends up serving neither the citizens, nor even the global community, really. 

And here is one of the foundational pieces of the argument.  Progressives do not agree with your philosophy.

[nsplayr]

So now that we've aired the reductio ad absurdum argument of open borders, can we put it to bed? No one of consequence I know on any side of any aisle is calling for open borders or unlimited immigration to the US.

The debate then is between a significant negative immigration flow, by lowering legal immigration to historic lows, working hard to completely eliminate illegal immigration, and deporting all the illegal immigrants currently in the country on the one hand, and some other upper bound on the other.

My view is that our country has it at its foundational core the responsibility and privilege to welcome immigrants and refugees and that we should welcome as many as is practicable.

The details of what that means are obviously up for debate, but I would start with much higher allowances for legal immigration, long-term work permits for all non-citizens already in the country who want them, tight border controls for national security reasons, and strict enforcement of labor laws and work permitting requirements when it comes to employers. In general, if an immigrant or refugee shows up at the door and wants to work in the US, we (within reason) should let them do so in a legal way, but we must prevent employers from hiring them under illegal work arrangements that undercut citizens looking for work.

When employers hire illegal immigrants, they often underpay and abuse them, to the detriment of both those workers as well as every American worker who might be looking for a job but isn't willing to work in illegal conditions. If the vast majority of (or ideally all) foreign workers in the US had valid work permits and were not subjected to illegal work conditions, that's better for everyone, foreigners and citizens alike.

This story was local where I live, and it demonstrates how our priorities around immigration aren't right IMHO: https://nashvillepublicradio.org/post/tennessee-town-grapples-fear-after-ice-raid-shakes-community#stream/0

This rural meat packing plant is working folks 60+ hour weeks and pays them $300 in cash weekly under the table. Not only is that well below minimum wage, the owner is also defrauding the US government by not paying payroll taxes (to the alleged tune of $2.5m).

But what happens when ICE finds out? They raid the plant, arresting over 100 people, but notably not the owner of the plant. In a town of 3,000 people, more than 3% of their total population, all folks who are working and putting food on their families' plates, are suddenly rolled up but not ole' Mr. Brantley who employed and abused these people for years while stiffing the government on taxes he owed and repelled local citizens with the abhorrent work conditions and criminally low in his plant.

The message being sent right now is clear: employee illegal immigrants, and you only stand to benefit from cheap, easily abused labor, and your tax bill is so much lower! No need to raise wages or improve conditions in order to attract Tennesseans who are citizens that might be looking for work.

But if you dare to work without proper documentation, Uncle Sam is out to get ya. It's completely back-asswards and unnecessarily inhumane.

Edited June 29, 2018 by nsplayr

[TreeA10]

No one of consequence is actually controlling the borders. And these people of " No consequence", assuming senators, governors, and mayors are inconsequential, are saying we should do away with the federal agency that exercises what little control over the border we actually enforce. Which leads us back to open borders without actually having to say they want open borders. 

'Abolish ICE' goes mainstream as Gillibrand, de Blasio back calls

Alex Pappas3 hours ago

 

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are joining the calls to gut the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.  (AP)

The idea was once relegated to the far-left. But the liberal push to abolish the federal agency that enforces federal immigration laws is going mainstream in the Democratic Party, with New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Mayor Bill de Blasio adding their support to the cause in the last 24 hours. 

"I believe that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] has become a deportation force … and that's why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works," Gillibrand said in a CNN interview Thursday night.

“We should abolish ICE,” de Blasio said Friday morning on WNYC radio. 

Gillibrand's endorsement is notable as she's the first sitting senator to back the 'abolish ICE' push -- and is considered a potential 2020 presidential contender. 

They join numerous other Democratic candidates, House members, liberal commentators and writers who have fought back against the Trump administration's immigration policies by calling to gut ICE -- which identifies, arrests and deports illegal immigrants inside the United States. 

Left-wing Democrats push to abolish ICE

Democratic lawmakers and candidates are increasingly seeking the elimination of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Here's a look at some of the most prominent figures looking to dissolve the agency.

The growing influence behind the push was underscored earlier this week with liberal primary challenger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's shocking victory over Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., a member of party leadership.

Ocasio-Cortez emphasized her support for abolishing ICE during the campaign, and even protested outside an ICE center in Texas. 

DEMS DEMAND ELIMINATION OF ICE AMID IMMIGRATION FUROR

“Its extra-judicial nature is baked into the structure of the agency and that is why they are able to get away with black sites at our border, with the separation of children,” the Democrat said in an interview this week.

The focus on ICE comes in the wake of the controversy over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, which called for all illegal border crossers to be prosecuted. This in turn led to the separation of families due to longstanding detention rules, until President Trump signed an executive order last week ordering families be detained together.

With that controversy in the headlines, the abolition of ICE -- which has long been the purview of far-left sections of the Democratic Party base advocating for open borders and no deportations -- has moved from being a slogan on protest placards to an idea being mulled by rumored 2020 hopefuls. 

"Every country needs reasonable law enforcement on their borders. ICE is not reasonable law enforcement. ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished," de Blasio tweeted Friday. 

 

 

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also has come under heavy pressure from the left to call for the elimination of ICE, particularly amid a far-left challenge from actress and activist Cynthia Nixon -- who called it a terrorist organization.

And Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., who has been floated as a 2020 Democratic contender, said that the U.S. should consider “starting from scratch” for ICE -- though stopped short of calling to abolish it.

In Oregon, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, who voted against the agency’s creation in 2002, doubled down on his opposition in a recent Medium post in which he called for it to be shut down.

“We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion,” he said.

In January, the idea was endorsed by Brian Fallon, a former top aide to 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s attorney general.

“ICE operates as an unaccountable deportation force,” Fallon tweeted. “Dems running in 2020 should campaign on ending the agency in its current form.”

The idea isn’t limited to deep-blue Democratic enclaves.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., announced Monday that he will introduce a bill to abolish the agency, set up during President George W. Bush’s administration in the wake of 9/11.

“I’m introducing legislation that would abolish ICE and crack down on the agency’s blanket directive to target and round up individuals and families,” Pocan said in a statement. “The heartless actions of this abused agency do not represent the values of our nation and the U.S. must develop a more humane immigration system, one that treats every person with dignity and respect.”

The shift to the left on immigration has some Republicans and conservatives delighted, thinking that it may move Democrats into unelectable territory.

"Based on the last week, Democrats apparently want to campaign on open borders, mass migration, & abolishing ICE," Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said on Twitter. "Give them points for honesty. Let's vote."

Fox News’ Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.

[nsplayr]

I'm not really all about abolishing government agencies (Hi Rick Perry! What's it like running a department you wanted to abolish?), so let's call it "Reform ICE."

And ICE isn't the same as CPB even though they are related and in the same department. I'm for a strong CBP, a vibrant USCIS (helps immigrants naturalize and become citizens), and a reformed ICE that focuses on helping make sure all immigrants here to work receive and use valid work permits, and that all employers enforce employment law.

Maybe you can take Senator Gillibrand seriously without taking her literally, like I did with Rick Perry. "Abolish" in a political campaign often means "reform" once in government.

[MooseAg03]

Would you agree nsplayr that anyone who came here illegally that is allowed to stay should never be allowed to vote? I think people should not be rewarded for breaking the law, and if they want to become full citizens, then they should go back to where they came from and immigrate legally. If they don’t want to do that, then fine - give them a permanent foreign worker status but they do not get to vote.

[nsplayr]

19 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

Would you agree nsplayr that anyone who came here illegally that is allowed to stay should never be allowed to vote? I think people should not be rewarded for breaking the law, and if they want to become full citizens, then they should go back to where they came from and immigrate legally. If they don’t want to do that, then fine - give them a permanent foreign worker status but they do not get to vote.

I think there should be a careful process to become a citizen, which we have, and that process should be open to all immigrants who aspire to be citizens.

If we need to make some kind of special rules for naturalization that make it "extra-hard" for people who came here as undocumented immigrants initially, I'm open to that depending on the details. That is at the core of basically all bipartisan comprehensive immigration deals over the years - an uphill (but not impossible) path to citizenship for those who came here as undocumented immigrants, paired with significantly more resources to enforce the border and various legal immigration tweaks depending on which bill you're talking about.

I'm also open to the concept that not all Americans need to be citizens, because that's essentially what we have now. There are people that have been living and working in our communities for 30+ years, and they are Americans just like me even if they are undocumented and I'm a citizen. To me, being an American is about what you do while you're here, not who you are or where you came from or whether or not you have a specific piece of paper. If that big-picture idea means we end up designing a system where we have long-term residents who are ineligible for citizenship, and they are ok with that and we as citizens are ok with that, great.

Unlike the caricature often painted, speaking as a Democrat, I sincerely do not care what political party immigrants may support one day way down the road if they naturalize and become citizens, nor is it a deal breaker necessarily if we end up deciding that these folks shouldn't be allowed to become citizens at all (although I would push back on that). It's not a political play, it's a moral principle.

Welcoming immigrants and especially refugees is the American thing to do, it's the christian thing to do if that applies to you, and it's the moral thing to do, at least based on the morals I live by.

Edited June 30, 2018 by nsplayr

[MooseAg03]

The problem lies with the order of implementation. You have to secure the border first, before allowing any sort of talk about any path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. We see the mess we’re in now after the amnesty of the 1980s. Locking down the border not only secures our country, but it helps protect the people struggling to cross desolate landscapes using help from illegal traffickers. How many times have we seen truck loads of these people abandoned in summer heat in TX because the POS trafficking in humans abandoned them because he was afraid of getting caught?

The caveat I would put on a pathway to citizenship would be only post wall completion, and actual illegal crossings would have to be virtually stopped both according to CBP/ICE and border state law enforcement (to prevent number fudging). I’d also put a time limit of 15-20 years of productive membership in society before applying for citizenship. Anyone caught trying to cross after implementation should be immediately deported no questions asked. We have to eliminate the incentive to cross illegally which I believe is the main problem with a pathway to citizenship in the first place.