The vanguard of the Caravan is already in Mexico City, more than halfway to the border

[untermensche]

The current problem began after the US terrorist attack of Iraq in 2003.

First of all, that was not a terrorist attack. Muslims flying planes into US buildings in 2001 was a terrorist attack. And second, the war against Iraq is hardly the beginning of history. You cannot ignore what came before it, going back to when an Arabian pedophile convinced his neighbors that Angel Gabriel spoke to him and that therefore they should refrain from pork and alcohol and follow him to conquer a bunch of places.

It was a terrorist attack.

A totally unprovoked terrorist attack.

Saudis flew into the twin towers. Saudis planned it.

It was a Saudi operation.

Somehow this is not understood by some.

The US terrorist attack of Iraq is the beginning of this current immigration problem in Europe.

It is the direct cause.

Those that don't think unprovoked attacks where innocents are murdered, raped and tortured are terrorism have no credibility on any adult issue.

Those that would only understand murder and rape and torture of innocents was terrorism if it was happening to them are not fully formed humans.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are a few minor problems with people coming into the US "illegally".

None that effect 99.999% of Americans however.

It depends on how many come in.

 

[untermensche]

There are a few minor problems with people coming into the US "illegally".

None that effect 99.999% of Americans however.

It depends on how many come in.

Sure.

But the nation could absorb a lot of people without any problem. It has many times.

This is a phony political issue from fascists using it as red meat to get support from certain types.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are a few minor problems with people coming into the US "illegally".

None that effect 99.999% of Americans however.

It depends on how many come in.

Sure.

But the nation could absorb a lot of people without any problem. It has many times.

This is a phony political issue from fascists using it as red meat to get support from certain types.

A lot of people have come in. It is a real issue because such immigrants bring basically zero capital with them and the more capital per worker the more the worker makes.

 

[untermensche]

Sure.

But the nation could absorb a lot of people without any problem. It has many times.

This is a phony political issue from fascists using it as red meat to get support from certain types.

A lot of people have come in. It is a real issue because such immigrants bring basically zero capital with them and the more capital per worker the more the worker makes.

Very few of the millions of immigrants from Europe brought any capital.

That is a worthless insane comment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure.

But the nation could absorb a lot of people without any problem. It has many times.

This is a phony political issue from fascists using it as red meat to get support from certain types.

A lot of people have come in. It is a real issue because such immigrants bring basically zero capital with them and the more capital per worker the more the worker makes.

Very few of the millions of immigrants from Europe brought any capital.

That is a worthless insane comment.

Two factors:

1) Back then the ratio was far lower anyway.

2) America was a colony--we already had a low ratio (that's why we made raw materials and imported the manufactured stuff.)

 

[untermensche]

Very few of the millions of immigrants from Europe brought any capital.

That is a worthless insane comment.

Two factors:

1) Back then the ratio was far lower anyway.

2) America was a colony--we already had a low ratio (that's why we made raw materials and imported the manufactured stuff.)

Back then?

The early to mid 20th century?

If we look at immigration in relation to the entire population we see it dipped from about 1910 to 1970. Even though immigration has risen it is still below 1910 levels in relation to total population.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It is a real issue because such immigrants bring basically zero capital with them

And therefore take all of the low-paying, shitty, menial labor jobs no similarly positioned American takes in spite of likewise having basically zero capital. Yet the same such immigrants contribute some $44 Billion annually to our tax coffers that go to taking care of the Americans who likewise have basically zero capital.

The only possible negative any Republican can point to--which is why they do so over and over and over again--is the criminal boogeymen among them, but as studies prove over and over and over again, it's a red herring:

The first study, published by the libertarian Cato Institute in February, examines criminal conviction data for 2015 provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety. It found that native-born residents were much more likely to be convicted of a crime than immigrants in the country legally or illegally.

"As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015," author Alex Nowrasteh writes. "The criminal conviction rate for legal immigrants was about 85 percent below the native-born rate."

The data shows similar patterns for violent crimes such as homicide and property crimes such as larceny. The study did find that immigrants in the United States illegally were more likely than native-born people to be convicted of "gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy." But as those crimes represented just 0.18 percent of all convictions in Texas that year, they had little effect on overall crime rates.

Another study, published in March in the journal Criminology, looked at population-level crime rates: Do places with higher percentages of undocumented immigrants have higher rates of crime? The answer, as the chart above shows, is a resounding no.

States with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tended to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares in the years 1990 through 2014. "Increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence," authors Michael T. Light and Ty Miller found.

That's just a simple correlation, of course, and it's well documented that many factors beyond immigration can affect the crime rate. So Light and Miller ran a number of statistical analyses to more clearly isolate the effects of illegal immigration from those other factors. Among other things, they find that the relationship between high levels of illegal immigration and low levels of crime persists even after controlling for various economic and demographic factors such as age, urbanization, labor market conditions and incarceration rates.

All told, Light and Miller sliced the data 57 ways to see whether there was anything they missed, but not one of their analyses showed any positive relationship between illegal immigration and crime. They concluded that not only does illegal immigration not increase crime, but it may actually contribute to the drop in overall crime rates observed in the United States in recent decades.

"Our study calls into question one of the primary justifications for the immigration enforcement build‐up," Light and Miller concluded. " … Any set of immigration policies moving forward should be crafted with the empirical understanding that undocumented immigration does not seem to have increased violent crime."

These two studies are far from the only ones showing that immigration, legal or otherwise, does not lead to rising crime. But the evidence they present is some of the strongest offered to date.

Which means, once again, there are only net benefits to immigration. Unless you're a racist pos white male who fears miscegenation and/or the death of white supremacy.

 

[ZiprHead]

The first study, published by the libertarian Cato Institute in February, examines criminal conviction data for 2015 provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety. It found that native-born residents were much more likely to be convicted of a crime than immigrants in the country legally or illegally.

"As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015," author Alex Nowrasteh writes. "The criminal conviction rate for legal immigrants was about 85 percent below the native-born rate."

The data shows similar patterns for violent crimes such as homicide and property crimes such as larceny. The study did find that immigrants in the United States illegally were more likely than native-born people to be convicted of "gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy." But as those crimes represented just 0.18 percent of all convictions in Texas that year, they had little effect on overall crime rates.

Another study, published in March in the journal Criminology, looked at population-level crime rates: Do places with higher percentages of undocumented immigrants have higher rates of crime? The answer, as the chart above shows, is a resounding no.

States with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tended to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares in the years 1990 through 2014. "Increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence," authors Michael T. Light and Ty Miller found.

That's just a simple correlation, of course, and it's well documented that many factors beyond immigration can affect the crime rate. So Light and Miller ran a number of statistical analyses to more clearly isolate the effects of illegal immigration from those other factors. Among other things, they find that the relationship between high levels of illegal immigration and low levels of crime persists even after controlling for various economic and demographic factors such as age, urbanization, labor market conditions and incarceration rates.

All told, Light and Miller sliced the data 57 ways to see whether there was anything they missed, but not one of their analyses showed any positive relationship between illegal immigration and crime. They concluded that not only does illegal immigration not increase crime, but it may actually contribute to the drop in overall crime rates observed in the United States in recent decades.

"Our study calls into question one of the primary justifications for the immigration enforcement build‐up," Light and Miller concluded. " … Any set of immigration policies moving forward should be crafted with the empirical understanding that undocumented immigration does not seem to have increased violent crime."

These two studies are far from the only ones showing that immigration, legal or otherwise, does not lead to rising crime. But the evidence they present is some of the strongest offered to date.

Did they call that the Miller Light Study?

Sorry, I'll go now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is a real issue because such immigrants bring basically zero capital with them

And therefore take all of the low-paying, shitty, menial labor jobs no similarly positioned American takes in spite of likewise having basically zero capital. Yet the same such immigrants contribute some $44 Billion annually to our tax coffers that go to taking care of the Americans who likewise have basically zero capital.

The only possible negative any Republican can point to--which is why they do so over and over and over again--is the criminal boogeymen among them, but as studies prove over and over and over again, it's a red herring:

The first study, published by the libertarian Cato Institute in February, examines criminal conviction data for 2015 provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety. It found that native-born residents were much more likely to be convicted of a crime than immigrants in the country legally or illegally.

"As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015," author Alex Nowrasteh writes. "The criminal conviction rate for legal immigrants was about 85 percent below the native-born rate."

The data shows similar patterns for violent crimes such as homicide and property crimes such as larceny. The study did find that immigrants in the United States illegally were more likely than native-born people to be convicted of "gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy." But as those crimes represented just 0.18 percent of all convictions in Texas that year, they had little effect on overall crime rates.

Another study, published in March in the journal Criminology, looked at population-level crime rates: Do places with higher percentages of undocumented immigrants have higher rates of crime? The answer, as the chart above shows, is a resounding no.

States with larger shares of undocumented immigrants tended to have lower crime rates than states with smaller shares in the years 1990 through 2014. "Increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence," authors Michael T. Light and Ty Miller found.

That's just a simple correlation, of course, and it's well documented that many factors beyond immigration can affect the crime rate. So Light and Miller ran a number of statistical analyses to more clearly isolate the effects of illegal immigration from those other factors. Among other things, they find that the relationship between high levels of illegal immigration and low levels of crime persists even after controlling for various economic and demographic factors such as age, urbanization, labor market conditions and incarceration rates.

All told, Light and Miller sliced the data 57 ways to see whether there was anything they missed, but not one of their analyses showed any positive relationship between illegal immigration and crime. They concluded that not only does illegal immigration not increase crime, but it may actually contribute to the drop in overall crime rates observed in the United States in recent decades.

"Our study calls into question one of the primary justifications for the immigration enforcement build‐up," Light and Miller concluded. " … Any set of immigration policies moving forward should be crafted with the empirical understanding that undocumented immigration does not seem to have increased violent crime."

These two studies are far from the only ones showing that immigration, legal or otherwise, does not lead to rising crime. But the evidence they present is some of the strongest offered to date.

Which means, once again, there are only net benefits to immigration. Unless you're a racist pos white male who fears miscegenation and/or the death of white supremacy.

At the levels we legally permit to immigrate you are right, the negative effects are of no importance. However, I was responding to someone who appeared to want open borders. That would be a big problem.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At the levels we legally permit to immigrate you are right, the negative effects are of no importance.

No, not of "no importance." They don't exist. There is only a huge net beneficial/positive effect.

However, I was responding to someone who appeared to want open borders. That would be a big problem.

How? We have open borders between states (and arguably should not considering the large number of American terrorists out there) and there is no problem. We effectively had an open border with Canada forever and a day (until 9/11 gave us the dumbshow theater of false security measures that don't do shit other than allay the fears of idiots) and there are no problems, let alone "big" problems.

What do you see would be a big problem with an open border?

 

[scombrid]

Very few of the millions of immigrants from Europe brought any capital.

That is a worthless insane comment.

Two factors:

1) Back then the ratio was far lower anyway.

2) America was a colony--we already had a low ratio (that's why we made raw materials and imported the manufactured stuff.)

My wife's babunia escaped Poland to Ukraine and then to the US in the 1930s. She had nothing but the clothes on her back and spoke no English. She worked as a fucking maid in a big east coast city while her son grew up to become a surgeon. My wife is a veterinarian with too many consonants in her name. I guess they never assimilate either, you know since that migration happened well after America was a colony.

 

[starwater]

Very few of the millions of immigrants from Europe brought any capital.

That is a worthless insane comment.

Two factors:

1) Back then the ratio was far lower anyway.

2) America was a colony--we already had a low ratio (that's why we made raw materials and imported the manufactured stuff.)

My wife's babunia escaped Poland to Ukraine and then to the US in the 1930s. She had nothing but the clothes on her back and spoke no English. She worked as a fucking maid in a big east coast city while her son grew up to become a surgeon. My wife is a veterinarian with too many consonants in her name. I guess they never assimilate either, you know since that migration happened well after America was a colony.

This is truely what America is all about. Your wife's babunia sounds like an incredible person and I am sure you are extremely proud to call her family.

 

[PyramidHead]

And therefore take all of the low-paying, shitty, menial labor jobs no similarly positioned American takes in spite of likewise having basically zero capital. Yet the same such immigrants contribute some $44 Billion annually to our tax coffers that go to taking care of the Americans who likewise have basically zero capital.

The only possible negative any Republican can point to--which is why they do so over and over and over again--is the criminal boogeymen among them, but as studies prove over and over and over again, it's a red herring:



Which means, once again, there are only net benefits to immigration. Unless you're a racist pos white male who fears miscegenation and/or the death of white supremacy.

At the levels we legally permit to immigrate you are right, the negative effects are of no importance. However, I was responding to someone who appeared to want open borders. That would be a big problem.

The driving down of wages that happens when uneducated, unskilled labor enters an economy like ours is easily mitigated by educating and training them so they aren't relegated to "low-paying, shitty, menial labor jobs".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At the levels we legally permit to immigrate you are right, the negative effects are of no importance.

No, not of "no importance." They don't exist. There is only a huge net beneficial/positive effect.

The negatives are too small to point to the effect but there's no question it exists.

However, I was responding to someone who appeared to want open borders. That would be a big problem.

How? We have open borders between states (and arguably should not considering the large number of American terrorists out there) and there is no problem. We effectively had an open border with Canada forever and a day (until 9/11 gave us the dumbshow theater of false security measures that don't do shit other than allay the fears of idiots) and there are no problems, let alone "big" problems.

What do you see would be a big problem with an open border?

Open borders work between places at a similar economic level. Open borders fail badly between places with very different economic levels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Very few of the millions of immigrants from Europe brought any capital.

That is a worthless insane comment.

Two factors:

1) Back then the ratio was far lower anyway.

2) America was a colony--we already had a low ratio (that's why we made raw materials and imported the manufactured stuff.)

My wife's babunia escaped Poland to Ukraine and then to the US in the 1930s. She had nothing but the clothes on her back and spoke no English. She worked as a fucking maid in a big east coast city while her son grew up to become a surgeon. My wife is a veterinarian with too many consonants in her name. I guess they never assimilate either, you know since that migration happened well after America was a colony.

I said nothing about assimilation.

- - - Updated - - -

And therefore take all of the low-paying, shitty, menial labor jobs no similarly positioned American takes in spite of likewise having basically zero capital. Yet the same such immigrants contribute some $44 Billion annually to our tax coffers that go to taking care of the Americans who likewise have basically zero capital.

The only possible negative any Republican can point to--which is why they do so over and over and over again--is the criminal boogeymen among them, but as studies prove over and over and over again, it's a red herring:



Which means, once again, there are only net benefits to immigration. Unless you're a racist pos white male who fears miscegenation and/or the death of white supremacy.

At the levels we legally permit to immigrate you are right, the negative effects are of no importance. However, I was responding to someone who appeared to want open borders. That would be a big problem.

The driving down of wages that happens when uneducated, unskilled labor enters an economy like ours is easily mitigated by educating and training them so they aren't relegated to "low-paying, shitty, menial labor jobs".

Did I say "uneducated"? I was talking about a lack of capital! (Note that education is a form of capital, but I was more talking about the ability to buy tools.)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The negatives are too small to point to the effect but there's no question it exists.

Nice dodge. There are no net negatives, however, only a gigantic net positive.

What do you see would be a big problem with an open border?

Open borders work between places at a similar economic level. Open borders fail badly between places with very different economic levels.

Again, how? We have open borders, yet you don't see mass migrations of people from West Virginia to, say, California or New York, where there are far more jobs and "very different economic levels."

Anyone that would make the trip to get here for work would be doing so because they can't afford to live where they currently do (which would mean they'd be dirt fucking poor) and as such most of those people would be what we already see; menial workers who would fill the jobs no Americans will deign do.

I'm talking strictly about economics at this point; not about other issues like political asylum.

Anyone with a better economic status either (a) would not have a reason to leave their home country or (b) would just become part of the same job pool as everyone else on similar social levels. Just like it always is.

Within less than a single generation, open borders would simply normalize, just as if we made Puerto Rico a state. Or simply relaxed borders (if open irrationally terrifies you so much) like we had/sort of have now with Canada.

Nothing would dramatically change. No mass exodus from home countries--anymore than we are already seeing--because no matter what, those people would still have to get a job here and compete with other Americans who already have a home-court advantage and still hugely rigged playing field in their favor.

This notion of borders--especially in today's global awakening--is just ridiculous. They have only ever been artificial constructs to define and maintain power.

These last two elections in particular prove that fact. The largest percentage of voters wanted X and the power mongers forced Y instead, through artificial and outdated map lines that don't actually exist anywhere but on paper.

If we simply threw upon the gates tomorrow along the US/Mexican border not a goddamned thing would happen that isn't already happening. Maybe an initial novelty uptick--certainly long-suffering families getting together--and then within months everything would normalize because people are people and borders are artificial constructs and Mexico would just become another US state, in effect. Just another place to drive to, like if you live in Minnesota and one day decided to drive to Mississippi.

You want it be special and unique--because that means self-aggrandizement and jingoism and being able to think that the US is special and unique and a shining beacon etc.--but it's not. We aren't. Those have all been deeply ingrained lies from the post World War II days that are still haunting us, but ever since Vietnam (though a good argument can be made for Korea as the true genesis), it's all been a giant pack of propaganda as evidenced by the fact that idiots had to come up with moronic bumper-sticker patriotism like, "Love it or leave it!" to desperately convince themselves that it's all still good.

Trump has done one very important thing, however indirectly; he's revealed the heart of this country for what it truly is underneath all the bullshit sales pitches and Hollywood/Madison Ave shiny shiny. A bunch of dumb-ass Dunning-Kruger racist pieces of shit who have convinced themselves their shit doesn't stink. Every Trump "rally" is an indictment of Americans, not a celebration.

I think what you really fear the most about opening the borders is that, within a few months--after that initial novelty wears off and it all normalizes--no one will want to come here anymore. Closed borders implies there's something special here to protect. Open borders forces you to realize, it's a huge pile of steaming shit. At least as far as a certain percentage of the population are concerned, both in the corridors of power and those that keep them there.

 

[PyramidHead]

Did I say "uneducated"? I was talking about a lack of capital! (Note that education is a form of capital, but I was more talking about the ability to buy tools.)

So? Why do we care if people who are willing and able to do productive work have the ability to buy their own tools? Is this reason to turn them away at the border? Just let people share their tools, it's not rocket science! You're framing these as intractable facts of the universe, but they are conscious societal choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nice dodge. There are no net negatives, however, only a gigantic net positive.

Saying there are no net negatives doesn't change the fact that there aren't negatives. At low levels, no problem, at high levels, a big problem.

Open borders work between places at a similar economic level. Open borders fail badly between places with very different economic levels.

Again, how? We have open borders, yet you don't see mass migrations of people from West Virginia to, say, California or New York, where there are far more jobs and "very different economic levels."

Oh? Lets look more carefully:

West Virginia Mostly flat/declining since 1950.
California Continually increasing.

While this doesn't prove people are moving from West Virginia to California it does show people are leaving West Virginia and people are moving to California. There is a considerable amount of migration from the crappy places to the good places.

Anyone that would make the trip to get here for work would be doing so because they can't afford to live where they currently do (which would mean they'd be dirt fucking poor) and as such most of those people would be what we already see; menial workers who would fill the jobs no Americans will deign do.

Around here most construction jobs used to pay well and be filled by whites. Now the pay is a lot less and they're mostly Mexican and plenty of them are illegals.

Within less than a single generation, open borders would simply normalize, just as if we made Puerto Rico a state. Or simply relaxed borders (if open irrationally terrifies you so much) like we had/sort of have now with Canada.

They would normalize at something approximating an average. US average household income is more than 6x the world average household income. That means we would on average lose 5/6th of our income in that generation.

Nothing would dramatically change. No mass exodus from home countries--anymore than we are already seeing--because no matter what, those people would still have to get a job here and compete with other Americans who already have a home-court advantage and still hugely rigged playing field in their favor.

They would come because a shitty life here is still way superior to what they had at home.

Look at the EU--a lot of people aren't happy with the amount of labor that has moved from the east and is hurting wages in the west.

I think what you really fear the most about opening the borders is that, within a few months--after that initial novelty wears off and it all normalizes--no one will want to come here anymore. Closed borders implies there's something special here to protect. Open borders forces you to realize, it's a huge pile of steaming shit. At least as far as a certain percentage of the population are concerned, both in the corridors of power and those that keep them there.

No. I don't care about being unique.

 

[Derec]

And we have the first anchor baby from this caravan.
Honduran woman in migrant caravan gives birth in US

The idiotic misinterpretation of the 14th amendment is giving a huge incentive for illegals to come here to give birth.
And if a 8 month pregnant woman can scale the fence, it's too short. We need a better barrier.

Even if the family's bogus "asylum" claim is ultimately rejected, the baby is still a US citizen. The illegal Honduran woman admits herself that giving birth on US soil was a "huge reward".
We need to amend the birthright citizenship law. And amend the asylum laws as well. People who enter illegally should not get to claim "asylum" to avoid deportation.