President Donald J. Trump: Orange is the New Black, House Slytherin Rises Also Heil Trump!

[Karbuncle]

Going to ask a quick off topic ish questions.

When it comes to illegal immigration where is it you all stand? I find the wall to be a bad idea but I agree with him in regards to stopping illegal immigration while expanding and easing the ways for legal immigration from Mexico.

In this regard, which areas do you agree or disagree with Trump regarding our southern border?

[Zetanio]

Going to ask a quick off topic ish questions.

When it comes to illegal immigration where is it you all stand? I find the wall to be a bad idea but I agree with him in regards to stopping illegal immigration while expanding and easing the ways for legal immigration from Mexico.

In this regard, which areas do you agree or disagree with Trump regarding our southern border?

I don't think it's really much of an issue. Overall numbers have been in decline over the last 5 years. I don't think we need a wall. I think Mexican immigrants, whether illegal or not, are a boon to our society. Finding ways to expand our legal paths for immigration sounds good but I think a reality check of how that can actually be implemented (especially given the budget Trump has put forward) is needed.

[Ragnus]

Amnesty should be given to benign illegal immigrants already in the states. Then boost border protection efforts. If I recall, there's areas of the border that make 1970s NYC alleys look like a safe place to be at 2am. Border patrol isn't good enough when lots of agents are in the pockets of cartels. Military personnel are less likely to be bought off, and this seems like a better use of our military budget than the billions of dollars spent on hardware that nobody requested.

The wall is fucking retarded. The logistics of this thing is insane. Adding a buffer zone, second layer of fence, and upped patrols seems to be a better idea.

[Byrthnoth]

Overall, I agree that we should deter illegal immigration. I disagree with Trump (and many republicans), because I think that:
1) "the wall" is mindnumbingly stupid
2) I don't think that illegal immigrants who settled here before we decided to enforce our immigration policies should be deported

[Karbuncle]

I'd also like to see his proposals on expanding the legal immigration system.

His budget is an absolute shit show and I cannot fathom a defense on that, I agree, it does dishearten me a little in regards to where that would bring us. Are there any stops to it? I know IL has been on a budget standoff for over a year now do we have any recourse for this one?

I can see your points on amnesty for those already here, I think illegal immigration does need to be significantly more well handled, as I think it spits in the face of those waiting patiently for legal immigration status... how I'm not sure but not a wall.

[archibaldcrane]

I'd also like to see his proposals on expanding the legal immigration system.

uh...

while there are some in his admin that would support that, the Bannon wing has no interest in bringing any more people with a shade of skin darker than his own into the country

[archibaldcrane]

I mean,

“When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think...” Bannon said. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

He doesn't even want successful Asians here.

[Darus Grey]

I'd also like to see his proposals on expanding the legal immigration system.

This is something I've been arguing for for awhile, we should treat Mexico like we treat Canada in terms of labor(where it's to some degree free labor exchange across borders).

Simply allow Mexico a similar deal and the "illegal immigrant" problem goes away, because they're all legally allowed to be here and work, it also means that in coming here they don't even need to become permanent residents, they can work and go back and forth freely as they please. This would likely lower the amount of existing aliens in the country, since a major motivation to stay is the fear of not being able to ever come back.

or tl;dr we should regulate the situation that is going to happen regardless rather than make token enforcements.

[Byrthnoth]

A brief history of foreign immigration to the colonies / eventually states:
* Colonies actively tried to recruit people
* In the early USA, we were still actively trying to get more europeans to move here
* Eventually, we stop recruiting efforts but still have no real immigration policy. If you live here, you're essentially a citizen.
* In 1882, we signed the Chinese exclusion act (our first attempt at anti-immigration legislation) and followed it up by setting quotas on immigrants from Asian nations
* In 1921 (post-WWI), the "Emergency Quota Act" was our first across-the-board attempt to reduce immigration from everywhere. It set the quotas for all countries at 3% of the number of people from those nations living in the US in the 1910 census.
* The Immigration Act of 1924 further restricted it to 2% of the number of people from those nations living in the US from the 1890 census. (think it would be, perhaps, a whiter country?)
etc.

So, we initially had no immigration policy and wanted lots of Europeans to move here. We briefly didn't actively want people to move here. Then our anti-immigration arc, which was basically fueled entirely by racism or (if you want to be polite) "nativism", began.



So I'd argue that the founder's philosophical take on immigration was basically "come one, come all" and that all attempts to pervert that since then have largely been driven by the -isms of your choice.

That said, "come one, come all" is not a viable strategy in the 21st century because mobility (and our desirability) is so much higher now. We, as a country, need to actually decide what it should be.

It's hard, because this country does have a high standard of living. When we decide who gets to immigrate, we're essentially picking winners and losers. What should we be picking based on? Their potential to contribute to our GDP? The difference it would make in their QoL?

[Karbuncle]

I'm happy there's acknowledgement that come one come all would be a disaster with today's mobility.

[Inshiya]

Is there any person here that's for the border wall?

Just curious.

Also, if so, what flavor crayons do you eat?

[Zetanio]

I'm happy there's acknowledgement that come one come all would be a disaster with today's mobility.

I agree for our country's global immigration policy but I think Mexico (as with Canada) requires a special approach.

[Andalusian girls]

His budget is an absolute shit show and I cannot fathom a defense on that, I agree, it does dishearten me a little in regards to where that would bring us. Are there any stops to it? I know IL has been on a budget standoff for over a year now do we have any recourse for this one?

the president can only submit a budget request as the nation's purse-strings remain in the hands of Congress. the degree to which Congress will adhere to or deviate from Trump's blueprint will be one of the more pressing political subplots in the months to come.

[Mertron]

was playing around on twatter looking at reactions to the McDonald's tweet. saw someone say they were going to buy some Starbucks, go to McDonald's, and plan a trip to Hawaii since they're trumpster-free zones

a trumpsters response: make it a one way trip to Hawaii and stay out of our country

gj

edit: doesn't look like it got posted here



tweet was since deleted but whatevs

[Andalusian girls]

A brief history of foreign immigration to the colonies / eventually states:
* Colonies actively tried to recruit people
* In the early USA, we were still actively trying to get more europeans to move here
* Eventually, we stop recruiting efforts but still have no real immigration policy. If you live here, you're essentially a citizen.
* In 1882, we signed the Chinese exclusion act (our first attempt at anti-immigration legislation) and followed it up by setting quotas on immigrants from Asian nations
* In 1921 (post-WWI), the "Emergency Quota Act" was our first across-the-board attempt to reduce immigration from everywhere. It set the quotas for all countries at 3% of the number of people from those nations living in the US in the 1910 census.
* The Immigration Act of 1924 further restricted it to 2% of the number of people from those nations living in the US from the 1890 census. (think it would be, perhaps, a whiter country?)
etc.

So, we initially had no immigration policy and wanted lots of Europeans to move here. We briefly didn't actively want people to move here. Then our anti-immigration arc, which was basically fueled entirely by racism or (if you want to be polite) "nativism", began.



So I'd argue that the founder's philosophical take on immigration was basically "come one, come all" and that all attempts to pervert that since then have largely been driven by the -isms of your choice.

That said, "come one, come all" is not a viable strategy in the 21st century because mobility (and our desirability) is so much higher now. We, as a country, need to actually decide what it should be.

It's hard, because this country does have a high standard of living. When we decide who gets to immigrate, we're essentially picking winners and losers. What should we be picking based on? Their potential to contribute to our GDP? The difference it would make in their QoL?

well historied but it should be noted that in the founding generation immigration was a non-issue. at the time of revolution the non-slave population was 90% English, and immigrants averaged <10,000 annually in the early decades of the Republic. there was no need for policy to foster a homogeneous populace as the populace was naturally homogeneous.

as for those whom we should allow in, national self-interest demand we focus upon attracting high-skilled migrants for permanent residency combined with an expanded work-visa program to allow for low-skilled labor to compensate for an aging native populace, and humanitarian interest demand we allow sanctuary for those who have been adversely impacted by our policies abroad.

[Katlan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QXUlhT...ature=youtu.be

Gave me a good laugh

[Darus Grey]

as for those whom we should allow in, national self-interest demand we focus upon attracting high-skilled migrants for permanent residency combined with an expanded work-visa program to allow for low-skilled labor to compensate for an aging native populace, and humanitarian interest demand we allow sanctuary for those who have been adversely impacted by our policies abroad.

Basically my thoughts, keep a more streamlined version of current best of best policy, and have low skilled programs with our neighbors, because economic realities mean our immediate neighbors are going to want to come here regardless.

[archibaldcrane]

as for those whom we should allow in, national self-interest demand we focus upon attracting high-skilled migrants for permanent residency combined with an expanded work-visa program to allow for low-skilled labor to compensate for an aging native populace, and humanitarian interest demand we allow sanctuary for those who have been adversely impacted by our policies abroad.

Yep

[Jefe]

Going to ask a quick off topic ish questions.

When it comes to illegal immigration where is it you all stand? I find the wall to be a bad idea but I agree with him in regards to stopping illegal immigration while expanding and easing the ways for legal immigration from Mexico.

In this regard, which areas do you agree or disagree with Trump regarding our southern border?

Y'all niggas don't have to worry about illegals from Mexico. They are leaving at a higher rate than they are entering. In fact, the garment industry is/has been fucked in Cali cuz there ain't no Mexicans, that and peeps like cheap chinese shit. Oh, and most illegals are Chinese/etc. w/ expired visas.

[Zetanio]

Oh, and most illegals are Chinese/etc. w/ expired visas.

New immigrants yeah. Mexicans still make up the VAST majority of illegal immigrants in the US.