Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

13032343536

Posts

  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    Didn't you hear? Mexicans 'aren't his problem'.


    Perhaps he isn't aware that brazen white supremacy & fascism has been out of fashion for quite a few decades.

    "Not my problem" wouldn't be especially offensive, even if it is depressing - it's not like blind "only American humans matter" nationalism is new. The creepy part was fantasizing about personally murdering people or forcing them to starve to death.

    Luckily for us he was only semi kidding, eh? D:

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Which would therefore allow us to curb some of the issues people freak out about immigrants, which would therefore permit greater amounts of immigration. etc.

    Basically it's a cost-benefit analysis thing; if we have a policy which reduces some of the costs, we should logically move towards favoring it more.

    (this is all in a weird bubble where we assume vaguely benevolent technocrats instead of, y'know, politics, really)

    Alright; then I stand by my previous argument. It's a terrible idea, mostly because we don't live in a bubble.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    I like how you slammed economics and then promptly invoked your own pet model to justify your case. What's that Keynes quote? "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist"?

    By the way, on this:

    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    Oh I know I am quite biased on the issue, as I am on most issues. I do try and recognize my internal bias. The last bit was more of a joke, unless you actually started feeling joy in which case I might have to work on my theatrics for a new hypnosis act.

    The truth however is that when looking at matters of sweeping policy I tend toward and unemotional practical one. All of our choices are bad, and once we start letting emotions cloud our judgment our problems only get worse. Does deporting illegal parents who chose to abandon their children into our social services system suck on an emotional level? Sure, however it is what we need to do. Is forcing people to return to a hellish shithole Mexico has become, which will possibly end up with them horribly burned to death, emotionally what we want to do? No, however it is what we need to do to take care of our own people.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    "Not my problem" wouldn't be especially offensive, even if it is depressing - it's not like blind nationalism is new. The creepy part was fantasizing about personally murdering people or forcing them to starve to death.

    Maybe I read too much into that, but the fact that he automatically attached the word 'problem' to Mexicans was offensive enough to me.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    Didn't you hear? Mexicans 'aren't his problem'.


    Perhaps he isn't aware that brazen white supremacy & fascism has been out of fashion for quite a few decades.

    Whoa there, I am just doing my part to avoid curb stomping the black man any more than my ancestors already have. One of the two gets to feel the boot of Detharin's indifference. Can't save both, and helping one hurts the other. So who does this fascist white supremacist kick the black/yellow man or the brown man?

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    Which would therefore allow us to curb some of the issues people freak out about immigrants, which would therefore permit greater amounts of immigration. etc.

    Basically it's a cost-benefit analysis thing; if we have a policy which reduces some of the costs, we should logically move towards favoring it more.

    (this is all in a weird bubble where we assume vaguely benevolent technocrats instead of, y'know, politics, really)

    Alright; then I stand by my previous argument. It's a terrible idea, mostly because we don't live in a bubble.

    Well, if we restrict ourselves to realistic policy options, then here's what I predict: we know that people worry about immigrants when unemployment is high (even if immigrants have nothing to do with said unemployment). Unemployment is likely to remain high for a while, so the worrying is likely to get louder.

    On the other hand, people aren't very good at creating policy that passes constitutional examination by SCOTUS, and the politicians that appeal to this crowd have no incentive to create such careful policy, so all we're going to see is a vague dance around the current position.

    Comparatively little, if anything, will change - in the longer run we will still have considerable Mexican immigration until economic disparities between the two countries reduce somewhat. And Hispanics, both legal and illegal, will face considerable harassment until then.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The truth however is that when looking at matters of sweeping policy I tend toward and unemotional practical one. All of our choices are bad, and once we start letting emotions cloud our judgment our problems only get worse. Does deporting illegal parents who chose to abandon their children into our social services system suck on an emotional level? Sure, however it is what we need to do. Is forcing people to return to a hellish shithole Mexico has become, which will possibly end up with them horribly burned to death, emotionally what we want to do? No, however it is what we need to do to take care of our own people.

    See, this could quite easily be a passage right out of My Struggle. You're only digging yourself a deeper hole and betraying your true colors.

    I mean, you don't know the first thing about economics or what, exactly, the most practical answer may be for the problems of American unemployment - but you go ahead and irrationally claim that killing Mexicans will solve all of your problems anyway.

    GEE WHIZ I WONDER WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    "Not my problem" wouldn't be especially offensive, even if it is depressing - it's not like blind "only American humans matter" nationalism is new. The creepy part was fantasizing about personally murdering people or forcing them to starve to death.

    Luckily for us he was only semi kidding, eh? D:

    What do you think happens to an unskilled worker population when they cannot find jobs, and there is no government assistance to help them?

    I am supposed to lie to you, say they have some rags to riches story, and ill all gets wrapped up in the third act? The more social services we offer to illegal immigrants, the more American citizens fall through the cracks due to lack of funding. We only have so many hospital beds, and so much money to go around. Which ever way we choose someone is going to die.

    Take California, it is no secret that its illegal immigration population is a drain on its resources. While by no means the entire cause of the current budget crisis they are a contributing factor. How many programs for drug treatment, and the homeless have been cut that could have been saved with the money instead spent on illegal immigrants. They are a very real cost.

    Whichever way we choose people die. That homeless guy who just had his shelter close and had his methadone treatment cut due to budget cuts? Yeah outlook not so good.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yeah, I suggest doing a lot more reading about how labor markets and immigration interact. You've been invoking classical labor models on one hand and immediately dissing it in the other. Pick one and stick with it.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »

    Well, if we restrict ourselves to realistic policy options, then here's what I predict: we know that people worry about immigrants when unemployment is high (even if immigrants have nothing to do with said unemployment). Unemployment is likely to remain high for a while, so the worrying is likely to get louder.

    On the other hand, people aren't very good at creating policy that passes constitutional examination by SCOTUS, and the politicians that appeal to this crowd have no incentive to create such careful policy, so all we're going to see is a vague dance around the current position.

    Comparatively little, if anything, will change - in the longer run we will still have considerable Mexican immigration until economic disparities between the two countries reduce somewhat. And Hispanics, both legal and illegal, will face considerable harassment until then.

    Oh hey a post about reality, have not had one of these in awhile. I agree with almost everything you posted. Although Arizona seems to be having good luck getting their laws to past constitutional muster. On the subject of what is likely to happen I would bet a couple more states follow suit, the laws pass the Supreme court as constitutional 5-4 (or are rewritten until they do) and the majority of illegal immigrants just bypass said states for more illegal friendly ones.

    Interesting note, the Arizona law is rather popular among voters, which include legal hispanics. The primary concern given is not actually a problem with the law, but being victims of racial profiling in attempted enforcement of the law.

    Of course this is largely fueled by the media circus which apparently has no problem with "license and registration" unless you are an illegal immigrant. Or asking you for ID before they arrest you for another charge.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    What do you think happens to an unskilled worker population when they cannot find jobs, and there is no government assistance to help them?

    I am supposed to lie to you, say they have some rags to riches story, and ill all gets wrapped up in the third act? The more social services we offer to illegal immigrants, the more American citizens fall through the cracks due to lack of funding. We only have so many hospital beds, and so much money to go around. Which ever way we choose someone is going to die.

    First, it is not terribly expensive to shack people up, even if we were to grant the absurd notion that all immigrants given amnesty would immediately reach for welfare checks. Second, even if it were expensive, you don't seem to mind - for example - the U.S. budget going towards the hangar queens of the USAF & other worthless military junk. It's not strictly money that's the issue - it's the management of money.

    Your final paragraph presents a false dichotomy in order to make your racist ideology seem more palatable. Killing Mexicans is not an economic panacea and will not solve the problems of limited hospital space or drug abuse.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    The thing is illegal immigration exacerbates many existing problems, unemployment being one of them. In a bad economy, with more people out of work, people are more directly competing with illegal immigrants than in a good economy. Certain industries are staffed primarily by illegal immigrants now due to lax regulation, as a cost cutting measure, and because the people you are directly competing with are hiring them. If you pay your workers minimum wage you cannot compete, and go out of business. In a good economy these jobs are less desirable, in a bad economy paying your workers as little as possible is ever more important. This further exacerbates unemployment problems.

    You need to understand that Academia is disconnected from reality. Economics textbooks are not economic reality. There is a reason by and large economics is a bastard science. Unlike the hard sciences where you can form a hypothesis, test it, and get repeatable results Economics does not work that way. All you can do is look at historic data, try and extrapolate which series of factors played into how the economy reacted, and hope you are right.

    Academic knowledge is not real world knowledge, oftentimes they diverge. How your college business classes say a business should be run, and how a business are run are often very different. One of the reasons employers value experience, because they need someone who can actually get the job done, not someone with a degree that says they should know how to get the job done.

    You can keep pounding on an Economics book, but the truth here is that we do not know the long term effects on the economy of illegal immigration. Studies are by and large jaded, politically motivated, designed to give the intended result, and at the very best speculative. We are treading new economic waters every day, and anyone claiming they know for a fact how things are going to turn out next is deluding themselves.

    Which is where you come in. You admit your policies cause problems from certain groups of Americans. Obviously those certain groups of Americans are going to disagree with you. You can't tell someone who is unemployed, can't find work, whos unemployment is about to run out, and has a family to feed that don't worry you will get to pay the maid you cant afford less and your fruit you don't buy will be cheaper.

    Second post.

    Take someone working in construction who cannot find work because all jobs are taken by illegal immigrants, and they are told by the people doing the hiring that they are unhireable because they would need to be paid minimum wage and require the proper safety gear whereas these guys over here will work for 2 bucks an hour, with no safety gear. Moreover even if they wanted to hire you they couldn't because that would cause their cost of labor to go up, which means they would have to bid jobs higher, which means they would get less jobs overall. Your response to this reality, that happens every day is that I do not see a study done on it, and according to my econ book this should just cause you to find a better job somewhere else.

    This is not a hypothetical example I am using. People who used to make good money in construction, now cannot find work or work that only pays minimum wage where previously they would make much more than that. Why? Because a surplus of unskilled labor moved in, drove competition way up, which drove prices way down. Simple economics.

    Of course construction workers can't find jobs, they're living in Nevada after the housing bubble popped, and nobody in their right mind would want to live in Nevada during the bubble.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »

    First, it is not terribly expensive to shack people up, even if we were to grant the absurd notion that all immigrants given amnesty would immediately reach for welfare checks. Second, even if it were expensive, you don't seem to mind - for example - the U.S. budget going towards the hangar queens of the USAF & other worthless military junk. It's not strictly money that's the issue - it's the management of money.

    Your final paragraph presents a false dichotomy in order to make your racist ideology seem more palatable. Killing Mexicans is not an economic panacea and will not solve the problems of limited hospital space or drug abuse.

    What else are they going to do? What an illegal immigrant offers employers is that they can be used to circumnavigate labor laws. If we legitimize them we remove an employers primary motivation for hiring them.

    As for the second, so having decided I am a racist because I do not want to fuck over American minorities (whom I must hate because I am a white supremacist apparently) and supporting policies that would make my own fruit more expensive, or potential maid. I also somehow, support buying more jets for the US air force? Have I said that somewhere, can you quote me on that?

    Also if I was a white supremacist I would be pro illegal immigration. See the logic behind white supremacy is that other races are inferior to ours. Therefore by bringing in more labor I both keep the black man down, the yellow man down, and create a slave underclass of the brown man. Plus my white devil brethren get cheaper fruit, and can further degrade our maids and gardeners due to the increase competition. They can take my money and like it. Wait though, aren't I arguing the opposite.

    But hey, if the race card makes you happy go ahead and play it. You would be closer to the mark calling me a Nationalist.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    normannorman Registered User new member
    edited August 2010
    Illegal immigration is itself a problem. But it is a cause of other problems too. Unemployment is one of the big problems which is being discussed over here. Apart from that, it puts pressure on a nation's economy too. Illegal immigrants use public services and in this way, the deserved ones remain deprived of what they deserve. The government spends millions of dollars to provide the basic necessities of immigrants.

    Legal immigrants won't be a problem for they have been allowed to enter with proper planning but illegal immigrants surely make themselves a bone of contention.

    norman on
    Fresh changes in US Visa appeared.
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Ender wrote: »
    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    Didn't you hear? Mexicans 'aren't his problem'.


    Perhaps he isn't aware that brazen white supremacy & fascism has been out of fashion for quite a few decades.
    The woes of Mexicans (i.e., the citizens of the country on our southern border) are not our problem, any more than the woes of Canadians are an issue that needs to be resolved by the US government.

    Your lame attempts at race-baiting notwithstanding.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I was just telling you that you sound pretty damn sociopathic; I wasn't actually expecting you to care (see also: sociopathy). It was, you know, a friendly FYI.

    Didn't you hear? Mexicans 'aren't his problem'.


    Perhaps he isn't aware that brazen white supremacy & fascism has been out of fashion for quite a few decades.
    The woes of Mexicans (i.e., the citizens of the country on our southern border) are not our problem, any more than the woes of Canadians are an issue that needs to be resolved by the US government.

    Your lame attempts at race-baiting notwithstanding.

    There's a pretty distinct difference between arguing that the welfare of citizenry of other sovereign nations should not be the primary focus of US policy and stating that Mexicans are bugs to be sprayed away whose suffering is meaningless. One is a fairly reasonable stance on social policy; the other exhibits a borderline sociopathic disregard for human beings. Detharin has stated multiple times that not only does he have absolutely zero concern for the suffering of human beings who aren't him, but that he is amused at how this stance causes offence to others. It is only reasonable that such an attitude should be found morally repugnant to civilized individuals.

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Also if I was a white supremacist I would be pro illegal immigration. See the logic behind white supremacy is that other races are inferior to ours. Therefore by bringing in more labor I both keep the black man down, the yellow man down, and create a slave underclass of the brown man. Plus my white devil brethren get cheaper fruit, and can further degrade our maids and gardeners due to the increase competition.

    Er, this implies that there is some sort of sense to white supremacy. White supremacists don't want a brown underclass or their own slaves (anymore); they don't want to see brown people, period - they want them all gone in pursuit of their magical fantasy where nobody has to work hard to perfect civilization because civilization is an inherent quality of European blood. :?

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Also if I was a white supremacist I would be pro illegal immigration. See the logic behind white supremacy is that other races are inferior to ours. Therefore by bringing in more labor I both keep the black man down, the yellow man down, and create a slave underclass of the brown man. Plus my white devil brethren get cheaper fruit, and can further degrade our maids and gardeners due to the increase competition.

    Er, this implies that there is some sort of sense to white supremacy. White supremacists don't want a brown underclass or their own slaves (anymore); they don't want to see brown people, period - they want them all gone in pursuit of their magical fantasy where nobody has to work hard to perfect civilization because civilization is an inherent quality of European blood. :?
    These days, the more "realistic" white supremacists are more interested in carving off a separate country for themselves from the the rest of the US. The Pacific Northwest and the Mountain West seems to be the most popular for a theoretical white homeland, as the states up there tend to be more white than the rest of the country.

    Of course, who qualifies as "white" varies a lot for the average white supremacist.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Also if I was a white supremacist I would be pro illegal immigration. See the logic behind white supremacy is that other races are inferior to ours. Therefore by bringing in more labor I both keep the black man down, the yellow man down, and create a slave underclass of the brown man. Plus my white devil brethren get cheaper fruit, and can further degrade our maids and gardeners due to the increase competition.

    Er, this implies that there is some sort of sense to white supremacy. White supremacists don't want a brown underclass or their own slaves (anymore); they don't want to see brown people, period - they want them all gone in pursuit of their magical fantasy where nobody has to work hard to perfect civilization because civilization is an inherent quality of European blood. :?
    These days, the more "realistic" white supremacists are more interested in carving off a separate country for themselves from the the rest of the US. The Pacific Northwest and the Mountain West seems to be the most popular for a theoretical white homeland, as the states up there tend to be more white than the rest of the country.

    Of course, who qualifies as "white" varies a lot for the average white supremacist.

    Is it based off a natural skin color paint swatch test, or current skin color? Because man, you thought the tanning bed tax was bad...

    :P

    kildy on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    You gotta remember detharin, you already made the point that a lot of people around here get all bleeding heart until it begins to affect them negatively and then it all goes out the window. You and me have been pointing out the flaws of the logic on the other side, but I've yet to see any real, viable solutions for taking care of this new strain on the social safety net other than some hand waving about "more taxes mean more money!!!" You have a lot of internet moralising going on around here, but that's business as usual.

    Loren may be making a wrong headed, out of touch argument, but he's least arguing from something that isn't emotion, so I'll give him that.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    You gotta remember detharin, you already made the point that a lot of people around here get all bleeding heart until it begins to affect them negatively and then it all goes out the window. You and me have been pointing out the flaws of the logic on the other side, but I've yet to see any real, viable solutions for taking care of this new strain on the social safety net other than some hand waving about "more taxes mean more money!!!" You have a lot of internet moralising going on around here, but that's business as usual.

    Loren may be making a wrong headed, out of touch argument, but he's least arguing from something that isn't emotion, so I'll give him that.

    Actually, the issue is that you're asking us to solve problems that you can't show actually exist. Next you'll be asking how we plan to deal with the Laredo ranch invasion. For a good example, why don't you show that they're some dire strain on the social safety net, at which point we can talk about the crime implications of illegal selkies.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    You gotta remember detharin, you already made the point that a lot of people around here get all bleeding heart until it begins to affect them negatively and then it all goes out the window. You and me have been pointing out the flaws of the logic on the other side, but I've yet to see any real, viable solutions for taking care of this new strain on the social safety net other than some hand waving about "more taxes mean more money!!!" You have a lot of internet moralising going on around here, but that's business as usual.

    Loren may be making a wrong headed, out of touch argument, but he's least arguing from something that isn't emotion, so I'll give him that.

    Actually, the issue is that you're asking us to solve problems that you can't show actually exist. Next you'll be asking how we plan to deal with the Laredo ranch invasion. For a good example, why don't you show that they're some dire strain on the social safety net, at which point we can talk about the crime implications of illegal selkies.

    This is exactly correct. legionofone packs each of his statements with assumptions. That immigrants cause unemployment, that there has been an increase in border violence, without providing evidence that any of this exists.

    Now, it could very well be that legionofone has seen all of this with his own eyes. If this is the case, why does the data not support it? It could very well simply be a local aberration, not a systemic problem, and should be treated as such, and he should not assume that his experience is representative.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If this is the case, why does the data not support it? It could very well simply be a local aberration, not a systemic problem, and should be treated as such, and he should not assume that his experience is representative.

    Now you're thumping your econ book again!!

    (yes, I'm bitter)

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    i have burned all my books in an effort to know the truth about things

    i suggest you do the same, ronya

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010

    Now, it could very well be that legionofone has seen all of this with his own eyes. If this is the case, why does the data not support it? It could very well simply be a local aberration, not a systemic problem, and should be treated as such, and he should not assume that his experience is representative.

    As we've said, the last 40 some pages of this thread support it, your poorly researched walls of text that can't even make up their mind about whether they're discussing illegal or legal immigration non withstanding.

    You're the one I'm still waiting to see bring something to the table that isn't stuffed with weasel words, spurious data conclusions, and unrealistic leaps in logic.

    EDIT: Honestly, if your "data" is so correct, why didn't the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation of the 80s result in all the benefits you seem so dead set on believing in?

    You do know the definition of insanity, right?

    @ Ronya: The difference between weathermen and economists? Weathermen more often than not suffer when they're wrong. I know you're upset that everything can't be broken down into an econ formula, but that's life.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    @ Ronya: The difference between weathermen and economists? Weathermen more often than not suffer when they're wrong. I know you're upset that everything can't be broken down into an econ formula, but that's life.

    No, what's upsetting is the propensity to both posit testable relationships between certain variables and then posit solutions based on your pet model of how the variables interact, and then you pretend it isn't economics and that you aren't spouting a half-baked economic model so that you don't have to defend it against arguments from, y'know, economics.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010

    Now, it could very well be that legionofone has seen all of this with his own eyes. If this is the case, why does the data not support it? It could very well simply be a local aberration, not a systemic problem, and should be treated as such, and he should not assume that his experience is representative.

    As we've said, the last 40 some pages of this thread support it, your poorly researched walls of text that can't even make up their mind about whether they're discussing illegal or legal immigration non withstanding.

    You're the one I'm still waiting to see bring something to the table that isn't stuffed with weasel words, spurious data conclusions, and unrealistic leaps in logic.

    EDIT: Honestly, if your "data" is so correct, why didn't the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation of the 80s result in all the benefits you seem so dead set on believing in?

    You do know the definition of insanity, right?

    @ Ronya: The difference between weathermen and economists? Weathermen more often than not suffer when they're wrong. I know you're upset that everything can't be broken down into an econ formula, but that's life.

    We vary between data on legal and illegal immigrants because the question is whether we should legalize current illegals and open up immigration so that people don't need to immigrate illegally. That means that we're going to talk about the effects of increased legal immigrant numbers.


    I love how "you need to prove your claims" counts as "weasel words."

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    @ Ronya: The difference between weathermen and economists? Weathermen more often than not suffer when they're wrong. I know you're upset that everything can't be broken down into an econ formula, but that's life.

    No, what's upsetting is the propensity to both posit testable relationships between certain variables and then posit solutions based on your pet model of how the variables interact, and then you pretend it isn't economics and that you aren't spouting a half-baked economic model so that you don't have to defend it against arguments from, y'know, economics.

    Are you upset because the facts on the ground don't match what your "model" said it should be? There there. There there.

    I figured your profession would be used to that by now, what with deregulating securities and the repeal of Glass-Steagall not ushering in an economic golden age. Or are you guys still trying to pretend that wasn't your baby?

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    @ Ronya: The difference between weathermen and economists? Weathermen more often than not suffer when they're wrong. I know you're upset that everything can't be broken down into an econ formula, but that's life.

    No, what's upsetting is the propensity to both posit testable relationships between certain variables and then posit solutions based on your pet model of how the variables interact, and then you pretend it isn't economics and that you aren't spouting a half-baked economic model so that you don't have to defend it against arguments from, y'know, economics.

    Are you upset because the facts on the ground don't match what your "model" said it should be? There there. There there. I figured your profession would be used to that by now.

    Ah, yes. The "facts on the ground" that you can't seem to substantiate. Are you sure the ground you're referring to isn't all in your head?

    Also, he never said anything about him having a model. He said you keep coming up with models that you claim can't be criticized as models because they're totally not models.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    I have a model: legionforce lives in Nevada. As he keeps saying, Nevada is shit. Therefor, everything associated with legionforce is shit, including legionforce himself. If we were to kill legionforce, the world would be shit free.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    You know, maybe you should show those forty pages of evidence, as all I've seen is one study from you that doesn't show anything whatsoever and a bunch of studies from me showing that immigrants bring down crime that you won't accept because you don't like them.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    Loren Michael presented a neatly sourced article to you four pages back and your response was to immediately spin your own model of reality and, of course, not cite evidence. Do I need to remind you? Look:

    Yes, the argument for immigration is extremely similar to the argument for globalization in general. Free migration is a component of globalization, so... well, of course they sound the same. I'm not sure which article you're referring to that neglects that they remit a lot of their money. The NPR article did not mention "middle class", so I'm not sure where you're picking out that assumption from the article. This factcheck.org article quotes actual relevant experts and backs up the NPR claims that you take issue with.

    And globalization has, so far, gutted the US manufacturing industry, contributed to general world wide environmental problems, and in general has concentrated the wealth mainly in the hands of the rich and powerful.

    Your fact check article (which has NOTHING to do with your NPR article, only references an advert that was run in Arizona) only approaches SKILLED labor after a brief nod towards the illegal labor issue (skilled labor is suffering to be honest is suffering under the influx of H-1B visa holders who are willing to be exploited for the opportunity to become LAPRs. That's a different story entirely, however.) It pretty blatantly refuses to deal with the average unskilled Mexican worker from Sinaloa, and instead puts on its blinders and uses Economics 101 logic such as "more people buying things makes the economy grow!" and doesn't even address the social costs of illegal immigration.

    You'll have to excuse me if I have a laugh at the Cato Institute continuing its "free market free market" mantra in order to please its corporate backers and kick the last legs out of the American Worker. The only reason that liberals and conservative elites agree on this issue is because the first sees a brand new voter base, and the second sees its chance to drive down the cost of labor and living standards of everyone w/o a bachelor's degree even further. To those who are actually suffering in the trenches of the job market (not them, not you), the broad arguments they make seem rather out of touch.

    Mind you, these are the same people (majority economists) that brought us to the conditions that led to the housing bubble and Enron's collapse. On top of it, we've tried amnesty before. Looking around, it doesn't seem like it was a massive success as these elites are trying to claim it will be if we just do it again.

    You know the weight of mainstream economics is against you. You know that you are spouting a fringe theory about the economy and where we stand (to put it politely). And you think the burden of proof lies on me? Really?

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Am I the only one to notice that legionforce seems much more occupied with trying to make us quit debunking his claims than trying to substantiate anything? It's almost as if he doesn't have have any legs to stand on.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    Loren Michael presented a neatly sourced article to you four pages back and your response was to immediately spin your own model of reality and, of course, not cite evidence. Do I need to remind you? Look:

    Yes, the argument for immigration is extremely similar to the argument for globalization in general. Free migration is a component of globalization, so... well, of course they sound the same. I'm not sure which article you're referring to that neglects that they remit a lot of their money. The NPR article did not mention "middle class", so I'm not sure where you're picking out that assumption from the article. This factcheck.org article quotes actual relevant experts and backs up the NPR claims that you take issue with.

    And globalization has, so far, gutted the US manufacturing industry, contributed to general world wide environmental problems, and in general has concentrated the wealth mainly in the hands of the rich and powerful.

    Your fact check article (which has NOTHING to do with your NPR article, only references an advert that was run in Arizona) only approaches SKILLED labor after a brief nod towards the illegal labor issue (skilled labor is suffering to be honest is suffering under the influx of H-1B visa holders who are willing to be exploited for the opportunity to become LAPRs. That's a different story entirely, however.) It pretty blatantly refuses to deal with the average unskilled Mexican worker from Sinaloa, and instead puts on its blinders and uses Economics 101 logic such as "more people buying things makes the economy grow!" and doesn't even address the social costs of illegal immigration.

    You'll have to excuse me if I have a laugh at the Cato Institute continuing its "free market free market" mantra in order to please its corporate backers and kick the last legs out of the American Worker. The only reason that liberals and conservative elites agree on this issue is because the first sees a brand new voter base, and the second sees its chance to drive down the cost of labor and living standards of everyone w/o a bachelor's degree even further. To those who are actually suffering in the trenches of the job market (not them, not you), the broad arguments they make seem rather out of touch.

    Mind you, these are the same people (majority economists) that brought us to the conditions that led to the housing bubble and Enron's collapse. On top of it, we've tried amnesty before. Looking around, it doesn't seem like it was a massive success as these elites are trying to claim it will be if we just do it again.

    You know the weight of mainstream economics is against you. You know that you are spouting a fringe theory about the economy and where we stand (to put it politely). And you think the burden of proof lies on me? Really?

    So wait, you argue with the idea that

    - Globalization gutted the US manufacturing base, is responsible (in/directly) for some serious environmental damage, and has concentrated wealth in the hands of a few while adding to a race to the bottom in the search for the cheapest prices

    -That the Cato Institute tends to chant "free market free market" and was a HUGE voice behind "deregulation will lead to better markets" that is part of why we are in our current mess

    - Elites are out of touch with what's affecting the common man, already brought up to you in the "Polite Discourse" thread about you beating your book about how great this is while real unemployment hovers around 20%(and getting pissy about being called on it).

    For the record, Loren's article couldn't decide whether it wanted to talk about skilled legal immigration or unskilled illegal immigration and used some big brush thinking and quoted numbers without regard to reality or the net costs on the social safety net and the public as a whole.

    Again, mainstream economists were saying how awesome the repeal of Glass-Steagall would be and that housing prices would ALWAYS go up so NINJA subprime loans were okay. That's who we should be listening to about this issue as well?

    Hah hah hah hah. Okay.

    Edit: So yes, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you guys (mainstream economists) are not going to fuck this up like you have most every other estimation you've made in the last twenty years, or like you did when mainstream economists got behind Simpson-Mazolli. For the record, that's the FIRST amnesty under Reagan, if you didn't know, and we're hardly living in some sort of economic utopia like is being predicted (by "mainstream economists") if we just do amnesty again.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »

    Er, this implies that there is some sort of sense to white supremacy. White supremacists don't want a brown underclass or their own slaves (anymore); they don't want to see brown people, period - they want them all gone in pursuit of their magical fantasy where nobody has to work hard to perfect civilization because civilization is an inherent quality of European blood. :?

    Well that does rather expose the problem of calling my a white supremacist when I really cannot accurately tell you what a white supremacist would want. Not with standing the whole my position almost directly favors the Black, Asian, and legal Hispanic minorities. Either way it is easier to call someone a racist than create an argument.

    Now had he called me a Nationalist and starting spouting off how I do not care for the welfare of people in other countries when compared to my own I would have agreed with him.

    That is neither here nor there, the truth is that right now the most likely solutions to illegal immigration are small state initiatives like Arizona, that due to the bad economy will see a surge as the people negatively effected by illegal immigration (or who think they are) clamor for the local representatives and demand something be done. The federal government lacks the will, and fears disenfranchising a portion of its voter base.

    As has been previously established illegal immigration does negatively effect a portion of the American people. Moreover another portion do not directly see the benefits they receive from it, and only see the problems. Which leads to the people hurt, and the people who think they are hurt demanding something be done of their elected representatives. Representatives who are local enough that if they refuse to do something will face a stiffer challenge next election cycle. Which is why Arizona is likely to bet he model for how states handle things going forth.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    Ronya, I know it's your thing to tirelessly correct people who know nothing about the subject they're passionate about (who've been recognized as such in other threads), but do you think you can continue to do it in a thread that has 40+ pages of wwhharrblegarble? And maybe, if it's not too much to ask, continue debunking spurious claims while correctly calling individuals out on blatant racism?

    TIA!
    TIA?

    rndmhero on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    Loren Michael presented a neatly sourced article to you four pages back and your response was to immediately spin your own model of reality and, of course, not cite evidence. Do I need to remind you? Look:

    Yes, the argument for immigration is extremely similar to the argument for globalization in general. Free migration is a component of globalization, so... well, of course they sound the same. I'm not sure which article you're referring to that neglects that they remit a lot of their money. The NPR article did not mention "middle class", so I'm not sure where you're picking out that assumption from the article. This factcheck.org article quotes actual relevant experts and backs up the NPR claims that you take issue with.

    And globalization has, so far, gutted the US manufacturing industry, contributed to general world wide environmental problems, and in general has concentrated the wealth mainly in the hands of the rich and powerful.

    Your fact check article (which has NOTHING to do with your NPR article, only references an advert that was run in Arizona) only approaches SKILLED labor after a brief nod towards the illegal labor issue (skilled labor is suffering to be honest is suffering under the influx of H-1B visa holders who are willing to be exploited for the opportunity to become LAPRs. That's a different story entirely, however.) It pretty blatantly refuses to deal with the average unskilled Mexican worker from Sinaloa, and instead puts on its blinders and uses Economics 101 logic such as "more people buying things makes the economy grow!" and doesn't even address the social costs of illegal immigration.

    You'll have to excuse me if I have a laugh at the Cato Institute continuing its "free market free market" mantra in order to please its corporate backers and kick the last legs out of the American Worker. The only reason that liberals and conservative elites agree on this issue is because the first sees a brand new voter base, and the second sees its chance to drive down the cost of labor and living standards of everyone w/o a bachelor's degree even further. To those who are actually suffering in the trenches of the job market (not them, not you), the broad arguments they make seem rather out of touch.

    Mind you, these are the same people (majority economists) that brought us to the conditions that led to the housing bubble and Enron's collapse. On top of it, we've tried amnesty before. Looking around, it doesn't seem like it was a massive success as these elites are trying to claim it will be if we just do it again.

    You know the weight of mainstream economics is against you. You know that you are spouting a fringe theory about the economy and where we stand (to put it politely). And you think the burden of proof lies on me? Really?

    So wait, you argue with the idea that

    - Globalization gutted the US manufacturing base, is responsible (in/directly) for some serious environmental damage, and has concentrated wealth in the hands of a few while adding to a race to the bottom in the search for the cheapest prices

    -That the Cato Institute tends to chant "free market free market" and was a HUGE voice behind "deregulation will lead to better markets" that is part of why we are in our current mess

    - Elites are out of touch with what's affecting the common man, already brought up to you in the "Polite Discourse" thread about you beating your book about how great this is while real unemployment hovers around 20%(and getting pissy about being called on it).

    For the record, Loren's article couldn't decide whether it wanted to talk about skilled legal immigration or unskilled illegal immigration and used some big brush thinking and quoted numbers without regard to reality or the net costs on the social safety net and the public as a whole.

    Again, mainstream economists were saying how awesome the repeal of Glass-Steagall would be and that housing prices would ALWAYS go up so NINJA subprime loans were okay. That's who we should be listening to about this issue as well?

    Hah hah hah hah. Okay.

    I don't remember any economists calling for GS repeal. Maybe Greenspan, but he was always a bit on the fringe of economics. The rest of your claims are totally unsubstantiated, have nothing to do with immigration (in fact, your claim about the environmental impact of globalization actually promotes immigration because it lowers shipping if labor is close to demand), and just plain makes no sense (it looks at numbers while ignoring the facts? Are you really that dedicated to truthiness?).

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    rndmhero wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    Yes, thanks, Scalfin. legionofone has an elaborate model of economic behavior in his head - for some reason he seems to be in denial about it. I presume because denying it allows him to raise his standard of evidence for actual economics while being lenient toward his own pet theory.

    ronya, I know its your thing to talk down to people who disagree with you (you've been called on it before in another economics related thread), but do you think you can do it a lot less obviously and in a thread that doesn't have 40+ pages of evidence against your side? And maybe, if its not too much to ask, posting some evidence and not simply talking about how "offensive" something someone says is?

    TIA!

    Ronya, I know it's your thing to tirelessly correct people who know nothing about the subject they're passionate about (who've been recognized as such in other threads), but do you think you can continue to do it in a thread that has 40+ pages of wwhharrblegarble? And maybe, if it's not too much to ask, continue debunking spurious claims while correctly calling individuals out on blatant racism?

    TIA!
    TIA?

    Are we at the stage in the thread when someone's girlfriend runs in here to slap fight on his behalf?

    And on a second read through I noticed you played the race card. Nice. But I'm afraid you have your premises backwards, which if memory serves me, is just part of you doing what you do so well!

    Hopefully you'll get in your long winded post that sounds like it was typed by a smug neckbeard before I have to tag out with detharin. That's always a highlight.

    legionofone on
Sign In or Register to comment.