Elections Mother Jones Writer: Warren’s Immigration Plan ‘De Facto Open Borders’

[Renard]

Dems 2016: Lose to Trump
Dems 2020: Open borders, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, house down-payments for everyone with black skin

What could go wrong

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Any unionized blue collar voting for warren is a certified retard.

Bernie's the only one that actually stands behind unions.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

That's your opinion on it.



Has nothing to do with genocide. When a foreign country sends millions of its citizens to illegally cross another country's border, traditionally that has been acknowledged as an act of war. And so it was, when the Soviet Union decided to send its invaders to "liberate" the Finnish population and turn it into a Soviet puppet state.

The Soviet trespassers or spies, whose task was to foster division and hostility among populations, were executed on the spot.



Legal immigrants who are subjected to the state's laws and go through its various institutions, which greatly helps in the process of assimilation.

Illegals are much more difficult to "assimilate", and often form sub-cultural collectives, that in worst case scenarios, lead to the formation of criminal gangs.

That may have been the case in Soviet Russia, but there's little to no proof that Central American countries are "sending" their people to our southern border as an act of war or to subvert us. Granted, it's highly problematic and part of why we need to secure the border and control immigration effectively.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

So I think you are missing my point here. Since the last time we had amnesty, around 10 million undocumented people have entered the country. There were surges in different time periods but the fact remains that immigration reform in the 80s didn’t actually fix the incentive for undocumented people to come here and live. Just because certain periods have higher or lower crossings and or apprehensions doesn’t completely appease me for the reasons you actually mentioned. It just take one economic downturn or collapse of a country south of here for an uptick to occur again so amnesty doesn’t just solve the problem. E-verify would take away that possibility for the most part and many would know crossing over here wouldn’t necessarily find them better work and economic prosperity if they did it illegally.

FWIW, Bernie is the only candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination who supports E-verify without conditions. Tulsi, who very well may be his vice presidential pick, also supports E-verify without conditions. So a potential Bernie-Tulsi ticket seems promising to me...

 

[therealdope]

FWIW, Bernie is the only candidate with a realistic chance of winning the nomination who supports E-verify without conditions. Tulsi, who very well may be his vice presidential pick, also supports E-verify without conditions. So a potential Bernie-Tulsi ticket seems promising to me...

Wait - I'm not familiar with why people are against E-verify. What exactly is the problem? Others actually want to go back to keeping an I-9 book on site?

 

[TheGreatA]

That may have been the case in Soviet Russia, but there's little to no proof that Central American countries are "sending" their people to our southern border as an act of war or to subvert us. Granted, it's highly problematic and part of why we need to secure the border and control immigration effectively.

Obviously not, but I can definitely understand the concerns, considering the amount of influence the drug cartels hold south of the U.S. border. Amongst millions of illegals there are bound to be quite a few bad apples.

I would personally not be comfortable with the level of crime and violence that still persists in America, most of which is perpetuated by these sorts of socially outcast gangs.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

That's your opinion on it.

It's a pretty rational conclusion after examining all the facts.

Has nothing to do with genocide. When a foreign country sends millions of its citizens to illegally cross another country's border, traditionally that has been acknowledged as an act of war. And so it was, when the Soviet Union decided to send its invaders to "liberate" the Finnish population and turn it into a Soviet puppet state.

The Soviet trespassers or spies, whose task was to foster division and hostility among populations, were executed on the spot.

Yeah, when actual, literal, invaders are sent in by a foreign government with the task of disrupting the state, they're that, invaders, not immigrants.

The US has literally never had that issue in its history and it certainly doesn't have it now. Immigrants to the US have never been "sent" by their governments on political missions. They've always arrived on their own seeking personal improvement.

So your example is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.

Legal immigrants who are subjected to the state's laws and go through its various institutions, which greatly helps in the process of assimilation.

Illegals are much more difficult to "assimilate", and often form sub-cultural collectives, that in worst case scenarios, lead to the formation of criminal gangs.

Here's the thing you and the entire right-wing brigade don't understand: the difference between legal and illegal immigrant isn't this hardwired, unchanging thing. It's a bureaucratic status that immigrants very often switch back and forth from.

You people are great at dehumanizing the illegal ones as almost a different species that could never achieve legality and for whom persecution and expulsion is the only solution. But what any actual immigrant (and immigration scholars) will tell you is that there is very little difference between the two. Obviously the legal ones have more opportunity and this often results in better economic condition, but there is no difference in morality or character between the two.

And what that study shows is that assimilation by today's immigrants (where there is a mix of legal and illegal) is happening at the same rate or faster than the immigrants of decades past (where all or most were legal). This is pretty remarkable and really highlights how irrational the current fear mongering really is.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

So I think you are missing my point here. Since the last time we had amnesty, around 10 million undocumented people have entered the country. There were surges in different time periods but the fact remains that immigration reform in the 80s didn’t actually fix the incentive for undocumented people to come here and live. Just because certain periods have higher or lower crossings and or apprehensions doesn’t completely appease me for the reasons you actually mentioned. It just take one economic downturn or collapse of a country south of here for an uptick to occur again so amnesty doesn’t just solve the problem. E-verify would take away that possibility for the most part and many would know crossing over here wouldn’t necessarily find them better work and economic prosperity if they did it illegally.

Of course the 1986 amnesty didn't eliminate the incentive to cross, it was never meant to do so. It was a measure to improve the economic and social standing of those already here.

I think we're working off two different assumptions here. You're trying to figure out what's the best way to stop immigrants from arriving because immigrants arriving is simply, clearly, undesirable.

I'm working off the assumption that immigrants arriving is in itself not a problem. The problem is that the ones that are undocumented (and who have no criminal history, of course) are an asset to the country who can and should be helped to achieve legality, which would make them be even bigger assets.

 

[Higus]

Wait - I'm not familiar with why people are against E-verify. What exactly is the problem? Others actually want to go back to keeping an I-9 book on site?

Ironically, some states are against it because it works too well. Some states tried to implement it and saw large decreases in their state's GDP and net revenue once immigrants left the state.

 

[Lead]

Of course the 1986 amnesty didn't eliminate the incentive to cross, it was never meant to do so. It was a measure to improve the economic and social standing of those already here.

I think we're working off two different assumptions here. You're trying to figure out what's the best way to stop immigrants from arriving because immigrants arriving is simply, clearly, undesirable.

I'm working off the assumption that immigrants arriving is in itself not a problem. The problem is that the ones that are undocumented (and who have no criminal history, of course) are an asset to the country who can and should be helped to achieve legality, which would make them be even bigger assets.

Second paragraph couldn’t be farther from my viewpoint here. I could be getting the threads mixed up but I already stated I support a second round of amnesty because I see no reason to try to reverse the lack of action of government for multiple decades and would rather just work on addressing it going forward. Secondly, we are talking from the premise of the US already being very open to legal immigration and taking in a very high amount of people annually. I’ve frequently mentioned in other threads how we have a strategic advantage compared to other developed countries like Japan and Germany because of the desirability to immigrate to this country.

The third paragraph actually is much closer to what I believe but I’ll try to differentiate where we split.
“I’m working off the assumption that immigrants arriving is in itself not a problem.”
Yes, I agree and would change the remaining part of the paragraph to:
The problem is that coming in through legal means and undocumented do not have enough sharp contrast in consequences due to how our government didn’t address the entire issue in the 80s and some policies proposed are looking to make the same mistake. Immigration can be encouraged and regulated at the same time. The problem becomes undermining our current regulated policy with one that never was passed through the legislative process. If one wants more immigrants in the country, there should be work to pass that as law and not simply encourage a back door method every couple decades to get what you wanted. That’s why e-verify is important. It upholds the incentive to come in by legal means and provides a manageable way to enforce it. The discussion can then shift to the volume of immigration we want.

 

[Lead]

Ironically, some states are against it because it works too well. Some states tried to implement it and saw large decreases in their state's GDP and net revenue once immigrants left the state.

Which is another reason amnesty has to be packaged in without whatever reform bill goes through. You can’t at this point expect that removing 10 million residents won’t have significant economic consequences (at minimum).
The policy has to be enacted from a federal level first cause states don’t have authority to grant amnesty.

 

[luckyshot]

“No one is calling for open borders” is the same kind of bullshit that “no one is coming for your guns” was. I’ll never trust a Democrat again until they stop pandering to progressives.

So, in 8 years, how many times did Obama come for your guns?

 

[Trotsky]

2008: "He's going to raise your taxes!"

*no one other than the top 1% get their taxes raised*​

2009: "Obamacare death panels!"

*no death panels*​

2010: "They're coming for your guns!"

*not a single attempt toward gun confiscation*​

2011: "They hate Israel! Antisemites!!!"

*Unprecedented deference and direct aid given to Israel during its ongoing extermination project*​

2012: "He's going to bankrupt the country!"

*annual reductions to the deficit in all but one year of his presidency; Republicans immediately multiply it upon later taking power*​

2014: "He's siding with criminals! He doesn't support our cops!"

*not a single action taken against law enforcement; extremely, painfully deferential to cops*
​

2016-present: "Open borders!!!!"

@Richie Madano: "Well, this time it's for real."​

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The third paragraph actually is much closer to what I believe but I’ll try to differentiate where we split.
“I’m working off the assumption that immigrants arriving is in itself not a problem.”
Yes, I agree and would change the remaining part of the paragraph to:
The problem is that coming in through legal means and undocumented do not have enough sharp contrast in consequences due to how our government didn’t address the entire issue in the 80s and some policies proposed are looking to make the same mistake. Immigration can be encouraged and regulated at the same time. The problem becomes undermining our current regulated policy with one that never was passed through the legislative process. If one wants more immigrants in the country, there should be work to pass that as law and not simply encourage a back door method every couple decades to get what you wanted. That’s why e-verify is important. It upholds the incentive to come in by legal means and provides a manageable way to enforce it. The discussion can then shift to the volume of immigration we want.

Underlined: tremendously inaccurate. The consequences for coming in undocumented are exponentially worse than doing it legally. You're pretty much resigning yourself to manual labor or some sort of self-employment. Despite this, there are some undocumented that have legitimate businesses (mostly in construction, landscaping, auto repair, etc), but obviously the vast majority struggle.

I post this in almost every immigration thread so here I go again:

It's not that "the right way" is available to all but immigrants just aren't incentivized enough to do it because of laziness or something. The "right way" is completely unavailable to a whole lot of people. Just about all the undocumented fall into one of those pink boxes.

E-verify would simply limit their employment opportunities even more, marginalizing them further. Aside from brutal, Third Reich-level persecution, expulsion, and militarization, the only thing that can truly stem the influx of the undocumented are the economic conditions of both the US and sending countries. This is why there was a sharp dip during 2008-09.

I don't see a problem with amnesty every few decades. I haven't seen a study on it specifically, but common sense tells you that the 1986 act had a positive economic effect on recipients' wages. It did lower crime, as expected:

I find decreases in crime of 2%-6%, primarily due to decline in property crimes, equivalent to 80,000-240,000 fewer violent and property crimes committed each year due to legalization.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1829368

 

[franklinstower]

I just read through the whole thread. Cliffs.

Warren is not calling for open borders.

TS says she is and a bunch of people who don't read say she is.

Educated posters come in with facts showing we did the same policies in the 80's and its not open borders.

People who don't read are now saying that policy did not work but not admitting the whole TS is a lie and Warren is not calling for open borders.

People who don't read keep arguing against Warrens open border policy.


This place can be a bit frustrating at times.

 

[Richie Madano]

So, in 8 years, how many times did Obama come for your guns?

This is stupid. Obama couldn’t legally grab guns, but you (the left) have made it perfectly clear it is your intention to do so when/if you are in the position to do so.

So you can stop lying now.

 

[Sycho Sid]

This is stupid. Obama couldn’t legally grab guns, but you (the left) have made it perfectly clear it is your intention to do so when/if you are in the position to do so.

So you can stop lying now.

ANy evidence at all for this?

 

[zebby23]

Dems 2016: Lose to Trump
Dems 2020: Open borders, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, house down-payments for everyone with black skin

What could go wrong

You - absolute lunatic

 

[franklinstower]

This is stupid. Obama couldn’t legally grab guns, but you (the left) have made it perfectly clear it is your intention to do so when/if you are in the position to do so.

So you can stop lying now.

But people said OBAMA was coming for the guns. He wasn't and didn't.

The right can stop lying now.

 

[zebby23]

This is stupid. Obama couldn’t legally grab guns, but you (the left) have made it perfectly clear it is your intention to do so when/if you are in the position to do so.

So you can stop lying now.

No, this is your perceived perception because you need ideas to hate the left. Some more ridiculous talking points you guys use are...

Open borders
Socialism
Free stuff for everyone

Literally not a single person supports these things yet you guys (since you need reasons to hate) make shit up and then believe those made up reasons. Meanwhile the left right now is talking about lower healthcare costs, lower college tuition and lower prescription costs. Ya know things that affect people like you.

It's really bizarre

 

[BarryDillon]

I just read through the whole thread. Cliffs.

Warren is not calling for open borders.

TS says she is and a bunch of people who don't read say she is.

Educated posters come in with facts showing we did the same policies in the 80's and its not open borders.

People who don't read are now saying that policy did not work but not admitting the whole TS is a lie and Warren is not calling for open borders.

People who don't read keep arguing against Warrens open border policy.


This place can be a bit frustrating at times.

It's not that they didn't read, it's just that they're being dishonest.