[One Degree]

[quote="Stormsmith"][/quote]

Asylum seekers can only step on American soil with the cooperation of Mexico at legal entry points. Asylum only applies if you are actually in the US.

Edit: I will admit to being confused why American authorities allow them to step into the US.

[Stormsmith]

For the record, I've never mentioned race, but, this issue you have with Mexicans is a tad much. Boarder guards, multi billion dollar țwalls that they tunnel underneath etc.

We cross the CAN-AM Boarder following a thorough interview that goes like this

'Where are you from?"

'Victoria, BC.'

'How long you down here for?"

'3 days"

''Kay."

One might wonder at the apparent difference.

Thank you for your response. It might make more sense after I woof down 2 more coffeess

[Drlee]

When they entered does not matter. As we agreed, they should not have entered, therefore it requires correction. We could even agree the US is at some fault for the current situation. This does not change the fact they knew they entered the country illegally. We are not responsible for their illegal actions.

Have some balls. Answer my question. What do YOU want the government to do with them? And their children? And their employees? And the mortgage company that lawfully sold them the house?

Who pays for foster care for their children?

No dodging.

[One Degree]

For the record, I've never mentioned race, but, this issue you have with Mexicans is a tad much. Boarder guards, multi billion dollar țwalls that they tunnel underneath etc.

We cross the CAN-AM Boarder following a thorough interview that goes like this

'Where are you from?"

'Victoria, BC.'

'How long you down here for?"

'3 days"

''Kay."

One might wonder at the apparent difference.

Thank you for your response. It might make more sense after I woof down 2 more coffeess

You don’t think maybe Canadians have a closer cultural relationship and a much less history of violent conflict may be factors instead of race? Or how about the proximity of the bulk of the Canadian population to the US. You need to look at where Canadians mainly lived. Mexico City does not offer that proximity.
Racially, both borders are compatible because of different US groups living there. I don’t see an argument for race.

@Drlee
How many ways can I say all illegals should be deported before you stop asking the same question?

Edit: As far as all the personal irrelevant details, they will be worked out. Houses will be sold and the money sent to them. You are just deflecting with details.

[Drlee]

How many ways can I say all illegals should be deported before you stop asking the same question?

This is the first time you have said it clearly.

The idea of deporting 11+ million people while potentially putting 4 million US citizens into foster care is preposterous. Your assertions that the economic hit of deporting these folks is preposterous.

You can't argue with stupid. They just beat you down with stupidity and beat you with experience.

You need to get a real grip. Thanks for being why I refer to Trump supporters as the fiddle and banjo crowd.

[Stormsmith]

I do see the potential for a race issue. You talk about drugs as a problem. This is where BC Bud was developed, and the opium problem is horrific.

And if I can add to Dr Lee's post, CA has a 3.9% unemployment rate and not enough water. They need pickers.

[One Degree]

I do see the potential for a race issue. You talk about drugs as a problem. This is where BC Bud was developed, and the opium problem is horrific.

And if I can add to Dr Lee's post, CA has a 3.9% unemployment rate and not enough water. They need pickers.

It looks like they have more than enough unemployed to supply pickers. What’s the problem?

@Drlee
11 million illegals are not going to leave overnight. Even if they did, a country of over 300,000,000 can survive it easily. It gets really old listening to the nonstop whining from people that believe no one should ever suffer hardship. What a bunch of idealistic wusses.

[Godstud]

@One Degree Do you even know what a 3.9% unemployment rate is? It means that there's pretty much no able-bodied people to employ. There are no people to hire. They'd need to import workers in from other states, or employ immigrant workers. Costly vs easy.

@Drlee is right on the money, and you should consider what he says. He's not wrong, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any economist who would disagree with that.

[One Degree]

@One Degree Do you even know what a 3.9% unemployment rate is? It means that there's pretty much no able-bodied people to employ. There are no people to hire. They'd need to import workers in from other states, or employ immigrant workers. Costly vs easy.

@Drlee is right on the money, and you should consider what he says. He's not wrong, and you'd be hard-pressed to find any economist who would disagree with that.

A rough estimate makes that about 1.5 million unemployed. This would not include those no longer looking for work. If you don’t think that is enough to supply pickers, then I need more explanation. Seems like a lot to me.

[blackjack21]

If I referred to your child who got a reckless driving ticket as a criminal, you might sue. You would certainly feel it unfair. The same for a litterer.

I wouldn't waste my time suing, because I know I would lose. Littering is a crime. Anyone who drives a car is a de facto criminal.

But the racists eat this shit up. It is this sense of proportion that proves the racism claim.

An infraction is a criminal offense. As I said, you have the right to refuse to sign a failure to appear. Watch what happens to you if you do that when you get stopped. It is only because you can be released on a promise to appear that you don't think of a common traffic stop as a criminal matter. It is criminal. Don't sign the promise to appear and they slap the cuffs on, and they will take you straight to see the magistrate (probably 12 hours later, after making you sit in jail the maximum time legally allowed if they aren't too busy or full).

This is why I think the smugness people like you exhibit is something of a character defect. The 4th Amendment means next to nothing as a result of vehicular stops. I've pointed this out to you I don't know how many times, but you are the type of person who wants fairly strict vehicle codes too without understanding its effects.

I find it kind of amusing to race bait people like you, because you are the ones creating the situations that allow racism to prevail. I think when we were debating the Ferguson, MO riots, you lamented black people getting pulled over more than white people. I've explained in detail how it's done--broken tail lights, burned out turn signals, etc. Those are the pretexts for additional searches. Another common one is expired registrations. I pointed out that I could tell you which people in my neighborhood were black based upon expired vehicle registration tags alone. I think I even pointed out a recent San Francisco case where a kid was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. How did the police find out? Routine traffic stop. People like you want to give the police all sorts of power and then chastise them for using the powers you gave them.

Illegal presence in a country isn't just a matter of a fine, it is also a case for deportation. That is why most of the people charged don't show up for trial, and why stop-and-release is a completely ineffective option. The reason you can consider this as a matter of race (as though Mexican or Latino were a race; another problem with your genius IQ forgetting that you are making an asinine argument) is because it primarily involves Central Americans entering the US from the Mexican border. Most visa overstays operate this way too.

Republicans do not want more immigrants now (unlike in Reagan's time) because those who become naturalized tend to vote democrat. Also their fat-cat donors want their economic indentured servants.

Their children typically become a burden on social services. As I've pointed out before, the graduation rate in the Los Angeles Unified School District is about 52%. Most of the children of Hispanic migrants fail to graduate high school. My maid works hard. She's in her 40s, but she's already a grandmother with a daughter on welfare. She describes her own daughter as "loco en la cabeza." Is she racist for describing her daughter that way?

I do not take seriously anyone who advocates for the current "zero tolerance" policy. They are either silly racists or they are little short of diabolical.

You may not wish to debate them politically, but they are a political majority now. We are interested in zero tolerance enforcement not just due to illegal immigration, but also to impose hardship on political factions who work to undermine the rule of law. I like making it utterly miserable for them. I'm happy they are upset with Trump's policy.

Either way they are not very smart. I am still awaiting a single proponent of the zero tolerance program (which includes the deporting of parents of US citizens and those who have been here over 10 years working and owning homes) to give us a plan to do this without destroying the economy.

There is the self flattering "I'm smarter than everyone else" disposition, which calls people racist while it has somehow escaped your supposedly superior wit that "Hispanic" is not a race. The economy is significantly harmed by providing benefits in excess of the minimum wage to people who can work, but don't. All those people will start working pretty quickly if they lose benefits.

Reagan was smart enough to do this.

Again, Reagan regretted Simpson-Mazzoli.

The fact is that no sentient human being really wants to deport 10-12 million people.

Sentient people want to do a lot of things you would find appalling. It took sentient people to develop nuclear weapons and drop them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What people find most frightening about the Nazis is that many of them were brilliant. They weren't morons. Intelligence does not equate with good or moral. This is another reason why I think your claim to having some sort of superior intellect is apocryphal.

It is aimed at mostly ignorant white people who have been convinced through disinformation that their jobs and way of life are at risk.

This is not 1992, drlee. This is 2018. The arguments you heard for NAFTA may still ring true in your mind. They do not ring true to people who have already lost their jobs.

You mean like 2008 when because of GWB's policies and in the face of obvious criticism, the economic crash cost millions of low and middle income people to lose their jobs, retirement and homes"

Which policies? What do you think caused the real estate market to crash, beside climbing interest rates and oil hitting $147 a barrel, which in turn caused a banking crisis?

I have asked you again and again why we should deport these people and your only answer is that they have violated one minor misdemeanor.

Hispanic is not a race. There are other reasons:

a) we have unemployed people who won't work unless wages rise; but,
b) illegal immigration keeps those wages down.
c) illegal immigrants usually don't speak the language; and,
d) they have no interest in cultural assimilation.
e) they often do not file 1040s and pay self-employment taxes; yet,
f) they use social services they are not paying taxes to use.

There are quite a number of reasons people oppose illegal immigration and want illegal aliens out of the country.

For me it is not a racial issue. For me it IS an economic issue.

Well, it's a political issue too, because Trump is president now, and you still can't face the reason why. You still have to resort to blasting people as being stupid. Hispanic is an ethnicity. So are the people who play "fiddle and banjo" as you've pointed out, without the very term ever interrupting your deluded sense that you are somehow enlightened. You can say, "No Irish need apply" with crocodile tears in one post and then say "fiddle and banjo crowd" in the very next with derision. Another issue you have is one you externalized--the frustration that the people who disagree with you no longer take you seriously.

I honestly believe that you do not understand just how ignorant your expressed opinions sound to educated and informed people.

What I think completely escapes your analysis is that they know exactly how it sounds to you, and they do not care one bit if it offends your sensibilities or makes you think less of them.

Now tell me what to do with the ones who did 10 years ago, own homes, have citizen children and employ Americans. Start with those.

Enforce the law. If they haven't bothered to fill out an application for residency or citizenship in 10 years, that is their own irresponsibility.

Have some balls. Answer my question. What do YOU want the government to do with them? And their children? And their employees? And the mortgage company that lawfully sold them the house?

Who pays for foster care for their children?

No dodging.

Pay a fine. Return to their country of origin. Their employees can find other jobs. They can rent or sell their property. They take their children with them, or they make arrangements for them and pay for it themselves just like every other parent has to do.

@Drlee
How many ways can I say all illegals should be deported before you stop asking the same question?

They are trying to "sensitize" you to the hardships of the policy you advocate as if you had not thought through the implications of the policy. They do not care about the people either. They just want to continue to exploit cheap labor. Their motivation does not include "compassion" as they would have you believe.

The idea of deporting 11+ million people while potentially putting 4 million US citizens into foster care is preposterous.

US citizen children of illegal aliens do not have to stay here. That is not a requirement. They can leave too. Lots of parents have to take jobs overseas and bring their kids with them. The idea that once you are in the United States you never leave is absurd. You purport to be well-traveled, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to you. So I find it puzzling to think that you would arrive at the conclusion that 100% of the children would remain in the United States.

Thanks for being why I refer to Trump supporters as the fiddle and banjo crowd.

Which is largely an ethnic slur... Way to show your superior IQ and wit there drlee.

And if I can add to Dr Lee's post, CA has a 3.9% unemployment rate and not enough water. They need pickers.

Slash welfare and you'll have all the pickers you need. Sooner or later, the vote buying game has to end, because the socialist's have run out of other people's money. You'll notice that none of the countries sending illegal aliens to the US pay people more than minimum wage in welfare benefits to remain idle.

It gets really old listening to the nonstop whining from people that believe no one should ever suffer hardship. What a bunch of idealistic wusses.

I know. Like the 90M able-bodied people who don't even seek work suffer absolutely no hardship. Cut welfare and it will get even tougher for them in the short run, but it will drive a degree of motivation that will set the US economy into overdrive.

[Drlee]

And as usual Blackjack has posted a few thousand words, sprinkled with racist dog whistles and not answered the question.

Apparently not as wise as he thinks he is.

Join the fiddle and banjo crowd Blackjack. They are the only ones buying your nonsense and inflamed rhetoric.

[blackjack21]

And as usual Blackjack has posted a few thousand words, sprinkled with racist dog whistles and not answered the question.

Hispanic is not a race, drlee. It's not about race if there isn't a different race involved.

Join the fiddle and banjo crowd Blackjack.

Nashville is doing great, drlee. I'm sure you are enjoying your gangsta rap as well.

[Igor Antunov]

[Godstud]

A rough estimate makes that about 1.5 million unemployed. This would not include those no longer looking for work. If you don’t think that is enough to supply pickers, then I need more explanation. Seems like a lot to me.

You do not understand unemployment, it seems.

There are people who are deemed unable to work, and those are the disabled, retired early, and pregnant mothers.

Getting to 100% employment is nigh impossible and even the few countries who do get close(a few get within 1%).

Also... Imagine if you're the owner of a factory. Now, suppose all your workers decide to go on strike, demanding that you increase their salary. In a country that has a few unemployed people, you have the option of firing all the striking workers and hiring a few previously unemployed people. But in a country that has 100% employment, you can find no one to replace your workers. And if you do concede to their demands and raise their salary, then what happens? They can just go on strike again, and demand another raise. Not just your factory. Everyone in the entire country can go on strike, knowing they are irreplaceable. And if everyone in the country keeps getting a salary hike so often, for doing the same work they did before, then inflation would skyrocket.

So all said and done, unemployment, in the right measure, is actually good for the economy.

Also, it's unlikely you are going to find employees at the wages that they want to pay them, since the jobs are back-breaking labour, and hiring Americans would hike the prices of American-made fruit to where Americans would not purchase them anymore, and buy foreign imported fruit.

You don't know much about economics, is what I can see.

[Crantag]

You do not understand unemployment, it seems.

There are people who are deemed unable to work, and those are the disabled, retired early, and pregnant mothers.

Getting to 100% employment is nigh impossible and even the few countries who do get close(a few get within 1%).

Also... Imagine if you're the owner of a factory. Now, suppose all your workers decide to go on strike, demanding that you increase their salary. In a country that has a few unemployed people, you have the option of firing all the striking workers and hiring a few previously unemployed people. But in a country that has 100% employment, you can find no one to replace your workers. And if you do concede to their demands and raise their salary, then what happens? They can just go on strike again, and demand another raise. Not just your factory. Everyone in the entire country can go on strike, knowing they are irreplaceable. And if everyone in the country keeps getting a salary hike so often, for doing the same work they did before, then inflation would skyrocket.

So all said and done, unemployment, in the right measure, is actually good for the economy.

Also, it's unlikely you are going to find employees at the wages that they want to pay them, since the jobs are back-breaking labour, and hiring Americans would hike the prices of American-made fruit to where Americans would not purchase them anymore, and buy foreign imported fruit.

You don't know much about economics, is what I can see.

Actually unemployment figures only include those who are actively seeking employment. It doesn't include disabled and elderly who are out of the work force; nor stay at home parents, etc.

The policy of the US is to have a target rate of unemployment. They don't want full employment. "Full employment" is that which complies with their target (notice the quotes).

The official rationale as I understand it is that excessive employment is correlated with high inflation. Marx though pointed out the need for a 'surplus army of the unemployed'. By this latter rationale, this surplus army serves to keep wages down.

[One Degree]

You do not understand unemployment, it seems.

There are people who are deemed unable to work, and those are the disabled, retired early, and pregnant mothers.

Getting to 100% employment is nigh impossible and even the few countries who do get close(a few get within 1%).

Also... Imagine if you're the owner of a factory. Now, suppose all your workers decide to go on strike, demanding that you increase their salary. In a country that has a few unemployed people, you have the option of firing all the striking workers and hiring a few previously unemployed people. But in a country that has 100% employment, you can find no one to replace your workers. And if you do concede to their demands and raise their salary, then what happens? They can just go on strike again, and demand another raise. Not just your factory. Everyone in the entire country can go on strike, knowing they are irreplaceable. And if everyone in the country keeps getting a salary hike so often, for doing the same work they did before, then inflation would skyrocket.

So all said and done, unemployment, in the right measure, is actually good for the economy.

Also, it's unlikely you are going to find employees at the wages that they want to pay them, since the jobs are back-breaking labour, and hiring Americans would hike the prices of American-made fruit to where Americans would not purchase them anymore, and buy foreign imported fruit.

You don't know much about economics, is what I can see.

I think the problem is those who know about economics refuse to admit it is not sustainable. They argue for political decisions based upon an economic system we need to abandon. We need a new system that can be sustained without population growth.
You see, I know enough to know it is foolish to listen to them and continue the way we have.

[Drlee]

It looks like they have more than enough unemployed to supply pickers. What’s the problem?

You asked. I don't expect you to listen. You will just troll again. So here is a serious answer to a really dumb question. Dumb because you have not thought it through.

For the sake of argument, I am going to grant that everyone of these farm jobs will be sought after by a person who is currently on welfare. Here is the answer to the question, "what is the problem".

1. And this really is number one. They do not in sufficient numbers, live in the rural areas where crops are grown.

2. They do not have experience nor are they acclimated to picking in the Arizona or Southern California heat.

3. They have no money to move.

4. When they get to rural Arizona there are no houses available for rent to them.

5. For those few that were previously occupied by illegal workers, they cannot qualify because they have no first and last months rent, security deposit, etc. Yes landlords could waive that but we'll see.

6. They have to give up their benefits in one state and know that if their job falls through that they will not qualify for benefits yet in the new state and will have lost benefits in the old state. It is too risky.

7. Many of these jobs are seasonal so a welfare receipient will loose their benefits because they become earners but lose the job in a few days/weeks.

8. Many do not have cars necessary in rural areas and no money to buy one.

9. A great many jobs filled by illegal workers require skills such as heavy equipment operators, carpenters, etc.

10. Listen carefully to this one. Local governments will scream to high heaven about the influx of workers who, because they have very low pay as unskilled farm workers, will soon qualify for public assistance unavailable to undocumented workers. Let me know how you think Brawley California will feel about hundreds of new children moving to their small town and eligible for benefits while their parents earn so little that they do not significantly impact the already strained tax base.

Now that we have that settled, let me know what you think the farmers are going to think about seasonal workers who will have to be paid a per-Diem for expenses, probably more than $25.00 an hour and benefits required by law.

You see, One Degree, you and your compatriots simply have not thought this through. At least I hope that is it.

[One Degree]

You asked. I don't expect you to listen. You will just troll again. So here is a serious answer to a really dumb question. Dumb because you have not thought it through.

We will see.

For the sake of argument, I am going to grant that everyone of these farm jobs will be sought after by a person who is currently on welfare. Here is the answer to the question, "what is the problem".

Why in the world would you start there? Oh, the 1.5 million unemployed don’t fit your arguments very well. Gotcha. I should quit right here due to your being disingenuous, but I will be polite.

1. And this really is number one. They do not in sufficient numbers, live in the rural areas where crops are

People from Mexico manage to travel a lot farther. There are no unemployed in the country? Amazing.

2. They do not have experience nor are they acclimated to picking in the Arizona or Southern California heat.

Poor babies. They are not trainable? They are not acclimated to the climate where they live? Another amazing fact.

3. They have no money to move.

Yeah, money is not a problem for illegals. The unemployed in the area don’t need to move.

4. When they get to rural Arizona there are no houses available for rent to them.

Again, not a problem for the unemployed in the area and nothing the illegals don’t contend with.

5. For those few that were previously occupied by illegal workers, they cannot qualify because they have no first and last months rent, security deposit, etc. Yes landlords could waive that but we'll see.

Illegals have more money than the unemployed? You seem to have different standards for citizens and your slaves.

6. They have to give up their benefits in one state and know that if their job falls through that they will not qualify for benefits yet in the new state and will have lost benefits in the old state. It is too risky.

Too risky? Poor babies again. Why do they have to go to another state? Well, we can’t have people giving up their benefits for a job. Lmao

7. Many of these jobs are seasonal so a welfare receipient will loose their benefits because they become earners but lose the job in a few days/weeks.

The unemployed will suffer no consequences. They can reapply for welfare. There are even emergency programs.

8. Many do not have cars necessary in rural areas and no money to buy one.

Busses and pickups are commonly used to transport pickers. Again, why the double standard?

American workers on unemployment are less skilled than illegal immigrants? Did you think this through?

10. Listen carefully to this one. Local governments will scream to high heaven about the influx of workers who, because they have very low pay as unskilled farm workers, will soon qualify for public assistance unavailable to undocumented workers. Let me know how you think Brawley California will feel about hundreds of new children moving to their small town and eligible for benefits while their parents earn so little that they do not significantly impact the already strained tax base.

What? Why should they not pay benefits for their own workers? Also, disingenuous. Illegals do get benefits. We have had that discussion before. Their children are eligible at the minimum. They also live in the area.

Now that we have that settled, let me know what you think the farmers are going to think about seasonal workers who will have to be paid a per-Diem for expenses, probably more than $25.00 an hour and benefits required by law.

Now you are arguing an imaginary scenario. You have no idea that any of that will happen. Besides, the whole idea is to increase American wages and reduce welfare and unemployment. Even your scenario is a bargain compared to what we are currently paying people not to work. We even have a great farm subsidy program.

You see, One Degree, you and your compatriots simply have not thought this through. At least I hope that is it.

We haven’t thought it through? You start with a false premise and you still could not come up with a valid argument.

Edit: I tried to bite my tongue but this was a very embarrassing post for you. You are literally stating illegals are superior in every way so we need to take advantage of them because it would inconvenience our own to do hard work. You are admitting what conservatives have always said, their sole purpose is to hold down wages.
Shameful admissions.

[Drlee]

And, as I suspected, One Degree offers no answers to my assertions except for comparing illegals living under the radar to citizens who can't and ought not do that.

You can see his knee-jerk response to every point. You can also see that there is absolutely no empathy or experience in the problems facing us with regard to mass deportation. His ideological world is so clear (to him only) that he refuses to apply anything more than an extremely superficial glance at the issues.

If you read what he posted he proposes replacing a population forced into hiding and poverty by their immigration status with one forced into hiding and poverty by their....well....poverty. I am sure that many wealthy people are quite happy with opinions like his. His attitude, common among republican dupes, gives these wealthy people hope that their servant underclasses will always be available for below market wages.

Your post is really pathetic. You should be ashamed to post such a shallow tome.

[One Degree]

And, as I suspected, One Degree offers no answers to my assertions except for comparing illegals living under the radar to citizens who can't and ought not do that.

You can see his knee-jerk response to every point. You can also see that there is absolutely no empathy or experience in the problems facing us with regard to mass deportation. His ideological world is so clear (to him only) that he refuses to apply anything more than an extremely superficial glance at the issues.

If you read what he posted he proposes replacing a population forced into hiding and poverty by their immigration status with one forced into hiding and poverty by their....well....poverty. I am sure that many wealthy people are quite happy with opinions like his. His attitude, common among republican dupes, gives these wealthy people hope that their servant underclasses will always be available for below market wages.

Your post is really pathetic. You should be ashamed to post such a shallow tome.

The tome was yours. I just responded to it. Truthfully, my responses were brief because you started out with that crap about welfare recipients being the only ones to do the jobs. Your post did not deserve even the little effort I put into my responses. That was a courtesy. I could have said a lot more about how ridiculous they were.
Your post was based upon demeaning stereotypes. You portrayed Americans on welfare and unemployment as stupid, weak, and totally destitute. Driving to a job is an insurmountable burden for them.
You portrayed illegals as basically work animals who are use to the hard, hot work and inconveniences yet somehow they are also wealthy, have cars, well trained, and well housed.
It is obvious from your post you consider both groups barely human. By the way, rural areas are full of people on welfare and unemployment.
That said. I don’t think you are a bad person. I just think you are an elitist who has no idea who these people are despite your volunteer work. You only see stereotypes created by a political view.