|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 29, 2017 13:20:32 GMT -5
I'm fine with a discussion of not having the wall because it won't help the illegal immigration situation, but I don't get the one where it's immoral and racist to try and want to. The discussion we are having HERE is whether or not the wall will be effective. No one HERE is calling anyone immoral and racist. I get that HERE that's what we're discussing, but almost always when the topic is brought up, that is the way it's framed. And if the wall isn't the most effective method, then what would be?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 29, 2017 20:08:35 GMT -5
And if the wall isn't the most effective method, then what would be? Wrong question. First - what are we trying to accomplish? Stem illegal immigration? Specifically, from Mexico? Let's agree we'd like to do that. Let's agree that no method will be 100% effective - even if we build that damn wall, some people will still find their way over, under, around, or through it. So the question should be based on a rational cost/benefit analysis. How much are we willing to spend for what rate of decrease in illegal immigration? Suppose I told you we could cut illegal immigration by 99%. But it would require half our national GDP. Would you consider that a bargain? It would, after all, be the "most effective" solution. You're suggesting we should give the wall serious consideration because, after all, a wall will stop more people than no wall. Which is undoubtedly true. What I keep asking is, how many people do you actually expect the wall to stop, and at what cost? If you can't even begin to answer that (and more importantly, if Trump can't even begin to answer that), then it is not a serious proposal to be taken seriously. It's not about "How dare you be so racist as to want to keep illegal immigrants out of the US?" I mean, I know there are people for whom that is the default response. But forget about them. I want to reduce immigration - legal and otherwise! It is probably one of my most illiberal positions. I don't even talk about it with most people I know, or my own family. I still think this wall is a fucking stupid idea. A multibillion-dollar boondoggle that, even if built (and I suspect what will actually happen is that we'll get chunks of it built, it will never, ever be completed, and eventually it will be torn down or left to deteriorate) will significantly decrease the quality of life in the US, increase our taxes, and just shift the flow of illegal immigrants to other points of entry. Give me one damn credible source that gives evidence - not just optimistic bullshit - why I'm wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2017 20:19:56 GMT -5
I disagree with Amadan in that I'm considerably more pro-immigration. But I agree 100% with the rest of his post.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 29, 2017 20:22:26 GMT -5
Amadan and Cass have it right, IMO. This is pure security theatre cast in the mold of the TSA.
I distinctly remember a whole raft of those of the right screaming about the TSA not that long ago. What's changed?
Bueller?
Anybody?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Jan 30, 2017 9:10:41 GMT -5
I know this thread is about The Walltm, but it also highlights three great arguments for school choice, IMO:
1)Widespread support for Trump's claim that Mexico will pay for The Walltm through tariffs proves the public school system is failing to teach basic economics.
2) Widespread support for Trump's trade policies, which are economically disadvantageous both to the average person and to countries who practice such isolationism, reinforces the argument that the public school system is failing to teach basic economics.
3) People who four years ago called Ron Paul an isolationist are now supporting Trump's trade policies and The Walltm. This proves that the public school system is also failing to teach both basic linguistics and basic logic.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 30, 2017 10:23:20 GMT -5
I know this thread is about The Wall tm, but it also highlights three great arguments for school choice, IMO: 1)Widespread support for Trump's claim that Mexico will pay for The Wall tm through tariffs proves the public school system is failing to teach basic economics. 2) Widespread support for Trump's trade policies, which are economically disadvantageous both to the average person and to countries who practice such isolationism, reinforces the argument that the public school system is failing to teach basic economics. 3) People who four years ago called Ron Paul an isolationist are now supporting Trump's trade policies and The Wall tm. This proves that the public school system is also failing to teach both basic linguistics and basic logic. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. Goddamit Don. Was there every anywhere in human history a time when the supposedly "educated" classes were not still prone to being taken in by hucksters and believing stupid bullshit? Anywhere? Anywhen? Bueller? More narrowly, when in American history did we do a better job of teaching economics, linguistics, and logic, such that American politicians did not propose stupid ideas that people (even educated people) voted for? It is a foible of human nature that emotion is stronger than reason, that people are more easily swayed by rhetoric and anecdotal evidence and personal experience (however atypical) than by dialectic and aggregated empirical evidence with large enough sample sizes to provide rational probabilities and a theoretical optimal solution. That's just the way people are. Education helps, but your theory that better schools - however they are achieved - would end this nonsense is not born out by over 5,000 years of recorded history. "Public schools suck, this is why everyone is stupid, that's why people believe stupid things" is a stupid argument. If you want to argue against public schools, come up with something better. And maybe not jam it into every damn thread whether it be about Trump's wall or Kanye's latest tweets.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 30, 2017 12:36:47 GMT -5
I disagree with Amadan in that I'm considerably more pro-immigration. But I agree 100% with the rest of his post. Well, I'm pro immigration as well. My father was an immigrant. My grandparents on my mother's side were immigrants.
But I'm pro legal immigration. We should be able to control who comes to this country. To be able to say, 'no look at that criminal record in your own home country. Stay out.' Or if we catch you here illegally because you raped or murdered someone and then we kicked you out, we should be able to keep you out or punish you for coming back over here.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 30, 2017 12:39:42 GMT -5
And if the wall isn't the most effective method, then what would be? Wrong question. First - what are we trying to accomplish? Stem illegal immigration? Specifically, from Mexico? Let's agree we'd like to do that. Let's agree that no method will be 100% effective - even if we build that damn wall, some people will still find their way over, under, around, or through it. So the question should be based on a rational cost/benefit analysis. How much are we willing to spend for what rate of decrease in illegal immigration? Suppose I told you we could cut illegal immigration by 99%. But it would require half our national GDP. Would you consider that a bargain? It would, after all, be the "most effective" solution. You're suggesting we should give the wall serious consideration because, after all, a wall will stop more people than no wall. Which is undoubtedly true. What I keep asking is, how many people do you actually expect the wall to stop, and at what cost? If you can't even begin to answer that (and more importantly, if Trump can't even begin to answer that), then it is not a serious proposal to be taken seriously. It's not about "How dare you be so racist as to want to keep illegal immigrants out of the US?" I mean, I know there are people for whom that is the default response. But forget about them. I want to reduce immigration - legal and otherwise! It is probably one of my most illiberal positions. I don't even talk about it with most people I know, or my own family. I still think this wall is a fucking stupid idea. A multibillion-dollar boondoggle that, even if built (and I suspect what will actually happen is that we'll get chunks of it built, it will never, ever be completed, and eventually it will be torn down or left to deteriorate) will significantly decrease the quality of life in the US, increase our taxes, and just shift the flow of illegal immigrants to other points of entry. Give me one damn credible source that gives evidence - not just optimistic bullshit - why I'm wrong. I disagree in that I think it's at least a good question to ask. I'm not all that enamored with The Wall. (Okay, the Pink Floyd version yes.)
I do want to stem illegal immigration. I want us to have some control over who comes into the county. I don't know if I believe the wall will do it, or if it will if it's worth the price, but I'd love for any discussion of it to include what we should do, not just what we shouldn't do.
ETA: To add, that I don't know if I know what will work myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 12:45:27 GMT -5
I don't disagree in principle, but the fact is, this country has made legal immigration so difficult that my grandparents, at least, never would have been allowed in.
I have a close friend who immigrated here -- highly educated, lots of money, good job here, fluent in English, and christ, what she had to go through to get a green card. Another friend (a U.S. citizen) moved to Germany. Why? Because she married a German man, and it was so much easier for her to move there than vice versa. They would have preferred to stay in the U.S. (she didn't want to move, and he loved it here), but it was such a pain in the ass, they decided it was better for her to go there.
Make legal immmigration less insane -- I have zero probem vetting out criminals and people with dubious backgrounds, but we should welcome hard-working law-abiding people -- and I'll be less sympathetic to illegal immigrants.
ETA:
As it stands, the poem on the statue of liberty is a joke and a sham. We send away the scientists and professors, let alone the tired and poor.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 30, 2017 13:00:29 GMT -5
I don't disagree in principle, but the fact is, this country has made legal immigration so difficult that my grandparents, at least, never would have been allowed in. I have a close friend who immigrated here -- highly educated, lots of money, good job here, fluent in English, and christ, what she had to go through to get a green card. Another friend (a U.S. citizen) moved to Germany. Why? Because she married a German man, and it was so much easier for her to move there than vice versa. They would have preferred to stay in the U.S. (she didn't want to move, and he loved it here), but it was such a pain in the ass, they decided it was better for her to go there. Make legal immmigration less insane -- I have zero probem vetting out criminals and people with dubious backgrounds, but we should welcome hard-working law-abiding people -- and I'll be less sympathetic to illegal immigrants. ETA: As it stands, the poem on the statue of liberty is a joke and a sham. We send away the scientists and professors, let alone the tired and poor. I have no issue with making it easier. Same thing goes for a lot of things like taxes, regulations, education, etc. Our system makes far more complicated than it should be. But I don't think that's a solution in and of itself. Increase safeguards. Get rid of sanctuary cities. Find a way to keep people out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2017 13:03:56 GMT -5
I don't even know WTF the sanctuary city thing means. I live in an alleged sanctuary city, and I'm not seeing the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 30, 2017 13:10:07 GMT -5
I disagree in that I think it's at least a good question to ask. I'm not all that enamored with The Wall. (Okay, the Pink Floyd version yes.)
I do want to stem illegal immigration. I want us to have some control over who comes into the county. I don't know if I believe the wall will do it, or if it will if it's worth the price, but I'd love for any discussion of it to include what we should do, not just what we shouldn't do.
ETA: To add, that I don't know if I know what will work myself.
What question are you asking? How to stop illegal immigration? Fine. My point is that "Let's build a big wall along the Mexican border" is not a remotely good idea. Even if I can't think of a better one, that does not mean "Okay, I guess we'll go with the wall then" is something we should do. I am saying that all the available evidence suggests to me that doing nothing would be better than building this stupid fucking wall. "Any solution" is not necessarily better than no solution, if "any solution" is ridiculously stupid and expensive. As for immigration, believe me, I am intimately familiar with the difficulties of legal immigration. And I am not saying I think we shouldn't allow any immigration. I just want to reduce it. Yes, that means I would not make it easier, I would make it harder. We can talk about who it should be easier for and for whom it should be harder. But that's a different discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jan 30, 2017 18:52:46 GMT -5
And I am not saying I think we shouldn't allow any immigration. I just want to reduce it. Yes, that means I would not make it easier, I would make it harder. We can talk about who it should be easier for and for whom it should be harder. But that's a different discussion. Not entirely though. I want to know why you feel this way. Please explain if you are so inclined?
|
|