WWTBAM Bored

In a tarriff thread-SSS referred to Spock's Beloved Central Valley of California which started me to wondering something.

1) We can all agree that SSS is not simple minded and that any position he holds is well researched on all sides.

2) It is fair to say that SSS comes down on the open borders side of the immigration debate.

I am wondering what (if any) negative(or cautionary) examples SSS uses in his weighing of the immigration issue.

Personally, I consider the Central Valley as a cautionary immigration example. Does he agree or disagree with this analysis?

Spock wrote:In a tarriff thread-SSS referred to Spock's Beloved Central Valley of California which started me to wondering something.

1) We can all agree that SSS is not simple minded and that any position he holds is well researched on all sides.

2) It is fair to say that SSS comes down on the open borders side of the immigration debate.

I am wondering what (if any) negative(or cautionary) examples SSS uses in his weighing of the immigration issue.

Personally, I consider the Central Valley as a cautionary immigration example. Does he agree or disagree with this analysis?

I suspect I agree with you, but not in the way you mean. I'm reading stories about crops rotting on the ground because not enough workers can be found to harvest them.

In the current economy, I don't think there's any economic reason to reject anyone who's willing to work. --Bob

Spock wrote:In a tarriff thread-SSS referred to Spock's Beloved Central Valley of California which started me to wondering something.

Who shot the sherriff?

Estonut wrote:

Spock wrote:In a tarriff [sic] thread-SSS referred to Spock's Beloved Central Valley of California which started me to wondering something.

Who shot the sherriff [sic]?

Will someone please shoot the tariff?

Spock wrote: Personally, I consider the Central Valley as a cautionary immigration example. Does he agree or disagree with this analysis?

Well, tonight I went looking on Google for information about immigration in the Central Valley but the only articles I could find had to do with immigration raids and farmers concerned about not having anyone to pick their crops thanks to Trump's policies.

So, I guess that is a cautionary example of how a xenophobic, racially based immigration policy that's designed to appeal to those Republicans with simple mindsets winds up being counterproductive.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: Personally, I consider the Central Valley as a cautionary immigration example. Does he agree or disagree with this analysis?

Well, tonight I went looking on Google for information about immigration in the Central Valley but the only articles I could find had to do with immigration raids and farmers concerned about not having anyone to pick their crops thanks to Trump's policies.

So, I guess that is a cautionary example of how a xenophobic, racially based immigration policy that's designed to appeal to those Republicans with simple mindsets winds up being counterproductive.

Sounds like you support law breaking and criminal conduct. It is the left's lax attitude of the rule of law that has created the problem. Decades of looking the other way rather than finding solutions within the law have created the economy of illegal immigration. Just because it may be painful to fix the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the problem. The main problem in fixing it is the left does not see illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Spock wrote: Personally, I consider the Central Valley as a cautionary immigration example. Does he agree or disagree with this analysis?

Well, tonight I went looking on Google for information about immigration in the Central Valley but the only articles I could find had to do with immigration raids and farmers concerned about not having anyone to pick their crops thanks to Trump's policies.

So, I guess that is a cautionary example of how a xenophobic, racially based immigration policy that's designed to appeal to those Republicans with simple mindsets winds up being counterproductive.

Sounds like you support law breaking and criminal conduct. It is the left's lax attitude of the rule of law that has created the problem. Decades of looking the other way rather than finding solutions within the law have created the economy of illegal immigration. Just because it may be painful to fix the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't fix the problem. The main problem in fixing it is the left does not see illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity.

The problem is that these jobs need to be done but there are nowhere near enough American citizens who want to do them. At least, not at a price that will let our farmers compete with foreign producers. That's not a function of illegal immigration. It's a function of the fact that the opportunities available to most American citizens are better.

So it helps everyone and hurts no one to let these people in the country. We get cheaper produce. American farmers get to stay in business. True, the lives of immigrants are improved as well but that's a price I'm willing to pay. That's how the free market (in the setting of the labor market) is supposed to work. In this context, strict immigration laws are nothing more than an artificial regulatory barrier that should be anathema to advocates for the free market.

There's a need for the workers and workers who are willing to fill that need, so we want those people in the country. We do this all the time in the tech industry. Why not do it for farmers as well? --Bob

BackInTex wrote: The main problem in fixing it is the left does not see illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity.

And my question is how is illegal immigration a "problem" other than the mere fact that it is illegal? Despite sensationalizing a handful of crimes, all the studies show that illegals pose less of a threat of violent crime than other groups do.

The answer is illegal immigration is a "problem" because it feeds into fears of darker skinned people that forms a great deal of the Republican party's political platform.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: The main problem in fixing it is the left does not see illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity.

And my question is how is illegal immigration a "problem" other than the mere fact that it is illegal? Despite sensationalizing a handful of crimes, all the studies show that illegals pose less of a threat of violent crime than other groups do.

The answer is illegal immigration is a "problem" because it feeds into fears of darker skinned people that forms a great deal of the Republican party's political platform.

I don't recall a single Republican speaking out against legal immigrants.

How do you rationalize letting someone cut in front of you in line at the store?

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: The main problem in fixing it is the left does not see illegal immigration as a problem but as an opportunity.

And my question is how is illegal immigration a "problem" other than the mere fact that it is illegal? Despite sensationalizing a handful of crimes, all the studies show that illegals pose less of a threat of violent crime than other groups do.

The answer is illegal immigration is a "problem" because it feeds into fears of darker skinned people that forms a great deal of the Republican party's political platform.

I don't recall a single Republican speaking out against legal immigrants. (my boldface added)

How do you rationalize letting someone cut in front of you in line at the store?

Well, except for the Trump administration, that may be true. But that was the essence of the Supreme Court case I posted about. The subject of that case, DiMaya, was in the country legally, yet the Sessions Justice Department wanted to deport him. You may say that he's not an immigrant, merely a permanent resident, but the law cited would have worked against a legal immigrant in exactly the same way.

Estonut wrote:How do you rationalize letting someone cut in front of you in line at the store?

Well, that's odd because the people who are being "cut in front of" for the most part overwhelmingly support their fellow immigrants. It's the ones who are already out of the line who are making a big stink about it and raising this phony rationale to legitimize harsh, sometimes downright inhumane treatment of people with dark skins.