Political Roundtable Part XIII

[nate33]

We NEED immigration for our country - that neither of our parties has been able to convey this to the voters is the real failure, IMO.

I disagree. I certainly don't think we NEED immigration in the numbers that we're actually getting. We could probably address all of our NEEDS with maybe one-tenth of the immigration we have now.

[dckingsfan]

We NEED immigration for our country - that neither of our parties has been able to convey this to the voters is the real failure, IMO.

I disagree. I certainly don't think we NEED immigration in the numbers that we're actually getting. We could probably address all of our NEEDS with maybe one-tenth of the immigration we have now.

This is a terrific debate to have. First, about 70% of high-tech jobs go unfilled. Filling those jobs allows those same companies to hire less skilled labor.

In addition, with all the anxiety about the disappearance of factory jobs, thousands of them are going unfilled and most of those are skills that we don't have in the US. We need to bring them in to train our workers.

Last, lots of folks attend our graduate programs from abroad. We WANT them to stay. They create the very jobs that we want.

Now, if you are saying we could get by with one-tenth of the unskilled immigrants - maybe. My guess is that farmers would disagree.

And this is why you need a comprehensive immigration policy. It would be great to have temporary visas for farm workers to come over.

But it is imperative to get in the high-skilled labor. We can't do that fast enough.

[Induveca]

I suggest everyone take a trip/move to a country where you don't understand the language without actively listening.

Love the board, but not having American democrats and Republicans bickering 24/7 visually and aurally has been great for my soul.

Meh. There is the joke in America. If someone is speaking with an accent, they speak one more language than you do.

But I often travel abroad - it is interesting how many speak English and speak English well. And even with our problems, they often express a desire to move to America.

And I find many of them to be in despair of their own politics.

Just saying...

The point was the "noise" level in the US is toxic to the mind currently. Not being inundated with extreme partisan information 24/7 is extremely relaxing, even if it's due to not natively speaking and/or reading the local language.

After a year of the media blasting terms such as rapist, pedophile, racist, anti-Semitic, Nazi etc....I just didn't want my young family "learning" in that environment.

I hope the Jerry Springer media antics did down in the US, until then I've chosen to take my family out of that toxic political environment where not even children are being spared the stress.

[nate33]

This is a terrific debate to have. First, about 70% of high-tech jobs go unfilled at current wages. Filling those jobs allows those same companies to hire less skilled labor.

In addition, with all the anxiety about the disappearance of factory jobs, thousands of them are going unfilled at current wages and most of those are skills that we don't have in the US. We need to bring them in to train our workers.

I fixed it for you . What do you mean that thousands of factory jobs are going unfilled and Americans lack the skills to do them but immigrants don't. Can you be more specific?

Last, lots of folks attend our graduate programs from abroad. We WANT them to stay. They create the very jobs that we want.

Agreed. I think we should encourage immigrants who graduate with STEM degrees to stay and become citizens.

Now, if you are saying we could get by with one-tenth of the unskilled immigrants - maybe. My guess is that farmers would disagree.

If you say the words "crops rotting in the fields", I swear to god I'm going to hunt you down and destroy you.

[dckingsfan]

For high-tech jobs there just aren't enough applicants. There is basically a negative unemployment rate. There have been a few studies that say this isn't the case - those are wrong. The argument "at current wages" doesn't apply. When they don't get filled, they just get outsourced abroad. (penalizing those companies is a side discussion)

And you have the local multiplier, where you for each job in the high-tech sector of a region you create 4 additional jobs in the local goods and services economy of the same region.

It is hard to make an argument that not keeping those that graduate from our colleges in STEM or not recruiting STEM graduates here makes sense is a very difficult proposition.

For manufacturing jobs, you may well have a point with the "at current wages". But you would be suprised by the skills that are required that we don't currently have. We have lost our millwrights and we are short on the high-tech workers that make modern factories go (see above). Anecdotal but, I was recently working with a company that declined to bring a manufacturing facility back to the US because they didn't feel they could get the skilled labor they needed (it wasn't a wage issue but a time issue).

And farmers don't let their crops rot in the fields, they just don't plant the crops if they don't think they can get them harvested. Either way, not helpful to our GDP and the tax base.

Don't get me wrong, the labor force participation rates of workers 25-54 (78.2%) could be higher - but the all-time high is 82%.

And we have an aging population. The overall labor participation rates are hovering near 62.7%, lots of folks are retiring.

So, if you want to keep going - we need to import folks. Or we don't and can just reduce our entitlement programs.

[sfam]

More on the post-Trump wave of anti-semitism.

ANOTHER WAVE OF ANTI-SEMITISM: Dozens Of Jewish Community Centers Receive Bomb Threats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bomb-threats-jewish-community-centers_us_58ab56a5e4b0f077b3ecfec4


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

There is no good reason for Trump not doing the easiest thing ever in denouncing anti-semitism. Its pretty stunning that he hasn't. I don't see any positive thing here other than the clear nod to his white racist flank that he is one of them, even in though this case he clearly isn't - Trump doesn't have a history of anti-semitism before this campaign.

There is a good reason. These are trap questions. The very act of asking Trump to address these alleged anti-Semitic incidents is essentially an attempt to place the blame for them at Trump's feet. Trump has neither said or done anything whatsoever that can be remotely described as anti-Semitic, so Trump's response was appropriate. If Trump responds in any other way than what he has said, the media spin will be to continue to link Trump to anti-Semitism.

And as an aside, there have been numerous hoaxes perpetrated by the left to make it look like there's a rise in anti-Semitism. I have some doubts whether the the increase in bomb threats are coming from the right at all. I'm not saying that I'm certain they're hoaxes, I'm just saying that there's some reason to be skeptical. If this skepticism leads to a less urgent response to potential hate crimes, well then the fault lies with the hoax perpetrators. Actions have consequences.

This is a truly looney response. Really. THE job of the President - like the majority of what they do is reassure the public and talk to issues people should pay attention to. I'm glad he finally got around to it.

As for the hoax comment on the rise of anti-semitic actions, this is pure alt-fact.

[sfam]

It was a riot...what does any of it have to do with terrorism? I thought we were afraid of immigrants because they were secretly members of ISIS? Or is it that immigrants are just generally violent people?

You are absolutely right. It has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism is not the reason that I oppose mass Muslim immigration (for Europe or here). The reason to oppose it is the culture clash. When you bring huge a population of people with a radically different cultural system, these types of riots and conflict are inevitable.

A prerequisite of democracy is that most of the people already have very similar values, goals, and a vision for society. You want most people to agree about things without the coercion of the state. If you don't have this condition, then you will inevitably have conflict once the minority groups grows sufficiently in size to have an expectation of enforcing their own cultural norms rather than the norms of the majority culture.

Take the issue of arranged marriage with child brides. To certain Islamic cultures, this is reasonable. Who are we to tell them that it's wrong to have a grown man marry a 12 year old girl? What would we do as a society when Dearborn, Michigan decides to enact a law permitting girls to marry adult men at age 12? Do we stop them? If so, would they be justified in rioting in protest?

What if an Islamic enclave in America insists that their women must wear hijabs and they wish to pass a law to do so? Do we stop them? If not, do we insist that non-Muslim women who may be passing through the region wear a hijab or be subjected to local punishment (which could conceivably be quite severe)?

These significant cultural clashes exist in other areas too. Consider the numerous reports of rapes and sexual assault in Europe basically under the pretense that the women "asked for it" by showing too much skin. This is clearly a problem that does not seem to be resolving itself. Will it get worse in the future? Is it right to subject women to this?

I'm not trying to troll anyone. These are honest questions that I don't think we have thought through. Certainly Sweden and Belgium haven't thought them through and now there is an increasing level of conflict. I don't wish to see that conflict here. Many of you consider yourself to be nicer and more tolerant than I by being more open-minded than I am to Muslim immigration. But I submit to you that your open minded tolerance now will lead to more conflict and violence in the future.

Except that Muslims have been a part of the US since before the Revolutionary War. The US is a multicultural society. This is its strength. There will be no Muslim Americans who think its OK to marry off 12 year olds. If its not clear, there never has been any movement among any viable group of Muslims Americans to apply Sharia Law in the US. Outside of Fox broadcasts that simply is not happening.

Nor will Muslim communities in the US force anyone to wear anything. They do so by choice - there will not be a time this changes. This too is fine. The US is a country of laws. Those who come here celebrate that fact.

Yes, people from different cultures absolutely take an adjustment period. Far more so when they've been violently thrown out from their homeland, have dealt with horrific tragedies and are dropped or journeyed to a strange and seemingly random destination. These are challenges. But they are hardly insurmountable. The ability to integrate diverse peoples, diverse perspectives and religions is our strength. We're better at it than all but a few countries. This is not a weakness.

And these problems do in fact resolve themselves, assuming the population is treated as equal citizens. This is in fact the normal immigration pattern in the US - the second generation sees themselves as Americans first and foremost and tries to eliminate anything that causes them to seem different. If you treat them as lesser people, as do many countries in Europe, you get long term, endemic problems.

[sfam]

On Saudi Arabia, over past 20 years or so, you would be hard pressed to find a worst player on the international stage. Pure evil has been exported continually from there, everyone knows it, and everyone knows the US has supported them the entire time. You want to know who is most responsible for the "islamic terrorism" the world is experiencing?

If you had to pick only one country, its a pretty easy choice.

[payitforward]

Just another day in Sweden:

Sweden: Looting, Cars Torched, Police Attacked as Riots Break out in Migrant Suburb
by VIRGINIA HALE, 21 Feb 2017

Riots broke out on Monday night in the suburb of Rinkeby, where a majority of residents were born overseas, just hours after the country’s Prime Minister attacked U.S President Donald J. Trump for linking mass migration with rising violence in Sweden.

The riots, in which cars were set ablaze and shops were looted, resulted in the Stockholm suburb looking “like a warzone” according to a journalist who was at the scene.

“Our officers were attacked by a number of people, some of them masked, who threw stones. They felt under so much pressure that a shot had to be fired”, said police spokesperson Lars Bystrom.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/21/sweden-cars-torched-looting-riots/

What if we actually discussed an issue, nate -- rather than just you posting inflammatory (in this case literally so!) stuff?

E.g., at one point you posted that some research you'd done made you think protectionism could be a positive thing. I'd like to know more about the research & what you mean by protectionism being positive -- in what way & how?

[TGW]

On Saudi Arabia, over past 20 years or so, you would be hard pressed to find a worst player on the international stage. Pure evil has been exported continually from there, everyone knows it, and everyone knows the US has supported them the entire time. You want to know who is most responsible for the "islamic terrorism" the world is experiencing?

If you had to pick only one country, its a pretty easy choice.

The bull double-standard is pathetic. If Trump really wanted to make a statement, he would have started his ban there.

[payitforward]

Sfam, I do *A LOT* of business with a major Swedish tech company. It is indeed awful, particularly in the suburban areas.

The government is doing their best to beat back the issue, but they have royally **** themselves in the name of "tolerance and acceptance".

There is a massive refugee migration wave hitting Europe. There are more refugees around the world than at any time in history. Of course there will be issues in integrating them wherever they land. Sweden has a long and successful history of doing this.

Clearly there are differences of opinion in Sweden, with the majority still seemingly in strong support of integration. Just as clearly, there are limits to how many people can be integrated at any one time.

Bottom line, tolerance and acceptance is a good thing, as are multi-cultural societies. That there are problems with this is not a reason to leave refugees, who are the absolute victims in this story, to their own fate.

Thank you.

[DCZards]

Except that Muslims have been a part of the US since before the Revolutionary War. The US is a multicultural society. This is its strength. There will be no Muslim Americans who think its OK to marry off 12 year olds. If its not clear, there never has been any movement among any viable group of Muslims Americans to apply Sharia Law in the US. Outside of Fox broadcasts that simply is not happening.

Nor will Muslim communities in the US force anyone to wear anything. They do so by choice - there will not be a time this changes. This too is fine. The US is a country of laws. Those who come here celebrate that fact.

Yes, people from different cultures absolutely take an adjustment period. Far more so when they've been violently thrown out from their homeland, have dealt with horrific tragedies and are dropped or journeyed to a strange and seemingly random destination. These are challenges. But they are hardly insurmountable. The ability to integrate diverse peoples, diverse perspectives and religions is our strength. We're better at it than all but a few countries. This is not a weakness.

And these problems do in fact resolve themselves, assuming the population is treated as equal citizens. This is in fact the normal immigration pattern in the US - the second generation sees themselves as Americans first and foremost and tries to eliminate anything that causes them to seem different. If you treat them as lesser people, as do many countries in Europe, you get long term, endemic problems.

Well said!

America thrives because of its inclusion, religious and ethnic diversity, tolerance and multiculturalism.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Watch on YouTube

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Watch on YouTube

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Except that Muslims have been a part of the US since before the Revolutionary War. The US is a multicultural society. This is its strength. There will be no Muslim Americans who think its OK to marry off 12 year olds. If its not clear, there never has been any movement among any viable group of Muslims Americans to apply Sharia Law in the US. Outside of Fox broadcasts that simply is not happening.

Nor will Muslim communities in the US force anyone to wear anything. They do so by choice - there will not be a time this changes. This too is fine. The US is a country of laws. Those who come here celebrate that fact.

Yes, people from different cultures absolutely take an adjustment period. Far more so when they've been violently thrown out from their homeland, have dealt with horrific tragedies and are dropped or journeyed to a strange and seemingly random destination. These are challenges. But they are hardly insurmountable. The ability to integrate diverse peoples, diverse perspectives and religions is our strength. We're better at it than all but a few countries. This is not a weakness.

And these problems do in fact resolve themselves, assuming the population is treated as equal citizens. This is in fact the normal immigration pattern in the US - the second generation sees themselves as Americans first and foremost and tries to eliminate anything that causes them to seem different. If you treat them as lesser people, as do many countries in Europe, you get long term, endemic problems.

Okay, I will take the Devil's Advocate argument on this one... even though I have argued the opposite earlier (that we need more immigration). It seems that the argument on the other side is three fold. First, we should take individuals that benefit the United States. Second, is that we should only take in as many immigrants as will not change the American culture. And lastly, all immigration should be legal. The context of the argument is based upon the 9.6 million immigrants in 1970 (4.8 percent of the population) to 38 million (12.5 percent the population) in 2008. There was a substantial lull during the recession - but the numbers a fairly great. One could easily argue that the number should be closer to 3% annually.

The first one is obvious in its context (and the true reason that German's are upset), the costs associated with unskilled immigration and the suppression of wage gains for the unskilled labor already in the US. There have been lots of studies on this subject. When you bring in unskilled labor, it is the second generation (or third) that makes the immigration worthwhile. Given that we are running a fairly substantial deficit and the biggest driver is entitlements, it seems prudent to reduce the unskilled labor immigration pool.

The second goes to nate's point - what is the tipping point where US culture is impacted. Certainly when you get large numbers you affect culture. BTW, this is the real reason for Brexit, communities were watching the culture of their towns change before their eyes. I think this is something that previous administrations just chose to ignore - bad policy often has unintended consequences.

The last point that you make inherently is that we are a country of laws. And those laws should trump our feelings. This is the issue with the dreamers. They were illegal but we are arguing that we ignore the laws for so long it should be okay.

[dckingsfan]

Watch on YouTube

Superball - do you think it is okay for this guy to crash another's peaceful protest?

[nate33]

What if we actually discussed an issue, nate -- rather than just you posting inflammatory (in this case literally so!) stuff?

It's a warning that large scale Muslim immigration is likely to have consequences.

E.g., at one point you posted that some research you'd done made you think protectionism could be a positive thing. I'd like to know more about the research & what you mean by protectionism being positive -- in what way & how?

I don't have time to write an entire essay on the matter. But the tl;dr version is this:

I understand the theory that, with all else being equal, free trade is best. I would encourage free trade between the U.S. and other nations with similar environmental standards, worker safety standards, and healthy social safety net. (Although, by "free trade", I don't necessarily mean the elimination of tariffs. It is possible that tariffs may be necessary to offset the effects of differing tax systems.) I'm cool with free trade between us and Norway, or us and Australia.

But the problem is, not everything is equal. Our biggest competitors in manufacturing have lower environmental standards, lower worker safety standards and a much smaller social safety net. They also engage in currency manipulation that hurts our trade deficit. Tariffs are necessary to offset this.

Furthermore, the concept of free trade is complicated by issues like welfare and unemployment insurance. The societal cost of people losing their job is much higher than it was 75 years ago. In the past, the loss of an industry to foreign competition resulted in a hit to our GDP (due to some losing their jobs) but also an improvement in consumer prices. It was arguable that those two issues offset, or maybe even the drop in prices outweighed the loss in income. But as the welfare state matured, that equation changed. What was once an even tradeoff (income loss and lower prices) may no longer be an even tradeoff. The economic impact of people losing their jobs is now much more costly, as the rest of the economy has to bear a much higher cost to support the unemployed.

[nate33]

As for the hoax comment on the rise of anti-semitic actions, this is pure alt-fact.

http://www.hatecrimehoaxes.com/

[sfam]

Okay, I will take the Devil's Advocate argument on this one... even though I have argued the opposite earlier (that we need more immigration). It seems that the argument on the other side is three fold. First, we should take individuals that benefit the United States. Second, is that we should only take in as many immigrants as will not change the American culture. And lastly, all immigration should be legal. The context of the argument is based upon the 9.6 million immigrants in 1970 (4.8 percent of the population) to 38 million (12.5 percent the population) in 2008. There was a substantial lull during the recession - but the numbers a fairly great. One could easily argue that the number should be closer to 3% annually.

The first one is obvious in its context (and the true reason that German's are upset), the costs associated with unskilled immigration and the suppression of wage gains for the unskilled labor already in the US. There have been lots of studies on this subject. When you bring in unskilled labor, it is the second generation (or third) that makes the immigration worthwhile. Given that we are running a fairly substantial deficit and the biggest driver is entitlements, it seems prudent to reduce the unskilled labor immigration pool.

The real enemy of the unskilled laborer, be they illegal or home bread white protestant, looks like this:



Building a wall doesn't solve this issue. Perhaps eliminating foreign engineers for those unfilled jobs you mention slows it down somewhat in that it will take longer for the machines to be built, but not really.

The world is rapidly changing. Automation coupled with nanotechnology are going to change things dramatically, at the same time we have real-time data analysis with machine learning, cloud based processing and all the rest. Illegal immigration is like the proverbial bee sting compared to a landslide. It would be great if policy were being developed for this problem too.

The other issue, removing orange pickers in Florida doesn't help the guy in Nebraska that lost his manufacturing job. There is no correlation between the two.

The second goes to nate's point - what is the tipping point where US culture is impacted. Certainly when you get large numbers you affect culture. BTW, this is the real reason for Brexit, communities were watching the culture of their towns change before their eyes. I think this is something that previous administrations just chose to ignore - bad policy often has unintended consequences.

This too isn't in isolation. Hispanics in small towns are noticed lots more as the towns are largely hollowed out. More immigration often benefits urban and suburban life, where the populations are more heterogeneous. In more homogenous places in the US, like the middle breadbasket for instance, there is clearly a need to actively work on connecting these communities. This is rarely done.

Also, the US is not living in isolation. Culture is changing whether or not we invite immigrants to our communities. The days of an isolated community and life, where one can rely on the same job and lifestyle for the majority of their lives have long since past. No matter how great Trump actually makes America, he's simply not able to return that lifestyle, which if you ask me, is what he's been selling.

Bottom line, our immigration is a trickle compared to Europe. This is a real question for countries across Europe to deal with. We aren't anywhere close. Far more concerning is the tensions and polarization across society. To imagine that the immigrants are the cause is missing a lot.

The last point that you make inherently is that we are a country of laws. And those laws should trump our feelings. This is the issue with the dreamers. They were illegal but we are arguing that we ignore the laws for so long it should be okay.

If you grow up in the US, you are enculturated as an American, regardless what your passport says. To deport the dreamers, who have known no other home is to deport people who are Americans in every way but their paper. The culture problem Nate talks of is nonexistent in this case.

We are a country of laws, and we are a practical people. We are also a nation of immigrants.Even Saint Reagan realized this in dealing with the immigration issue. He handled this balance well in committing the Republican syn of Amnesty.

By keeping millions in an illegal state, who are just now all at new risk of being deported, you've literally removed their legal reasons for acting within the law. All they have now are moral reasons for following our laws. If they do get a minor infraction, they are more likely now to engage in violence to stop from being caught. Literally, the deportation approach will lead to more criminal behavior. It would be far better to find legal means of addressing this, including work visas and all the rest.

Most of the folks working here to send remittances back home to El Salvador, Guatemala and elsewhere have no real interest in living permanently here in the US. Their status prevents free travel, so they stay, work around the clock, and just send money. Changing their status benefits everyone.