|
Post by dradtke on Dec 19, 2014 15:37:24 GMT -5
Do you remember a book called Megatrends from 1982? One of Naisbitt's major trends was what he called the Latinization of America. He told us then that even if we lined our southern border with troops we would be unable to shoot people fast enough to prevent this. At least that's something like I remember him saying. It is a fait accompli in Warsaw. Our adult population is less than 20% Latin American. Our high school approaches 40% and our elementary approaches 75%. So 20% of the adults are parents to 75% of the kids? Must be big families.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 19, 2014 15:53:20 GMT -5
It is a fait accompli in Warsaw. Our adult population is less than 20% Latin American. Our high school approaches 40% and our elementary approaches 75%. So 20% of the adults are parents to 75% of the kids? Must be big families. My numbers are obviously not the kind of reliable numbers one might expect from, say a Karl Rove pre-election poll, but to your tag of sarcasm at the end "Must be big families"...you have NO idea. 6-8 children per is not unusual. One or two is. Plus, our overall population is fairly small.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 19, 2014 17:36:42 GMT -5
The Minneapolis school system has been in the Minnesota news all year (and the year before that, and the year before that and so on for as long as I can recall). Today on Minnesota Public Radio, a panel comprised of the head of the Mpls teachers' Union, the interim supterintendent, and a school board member concured that the graduation rate of black males in the Mpls school systme was 25% (despite extreme measures of handholding and near bribery, (editorial comment). They said that thousands of students in the Mpls school system were homeless, and they said that the unemployment rate of black males in Mpls was 50%.
These are among the rosier comments I have heard about the Mpls school system. And I don't expect they are surprising to anyone familiar with urban school districts with high minority populations. And I imagine Mpls is a beacon of hope compared to school systems in Detroit and Philidelphia. And it raised a question (raises, not begs), why is the U.S. accepting economic refugees from other countries when it isn't able to address the issues bedeviling its homegrown economic refugees?
There is no plan or will to stop the influx of economic refugees from Latin Anerica. There is pressure to step up the acceptance of economic and political refugess from Africa and the Middle East. But there is no plan or, apparently, will, to address the overwhelmed institutions that have proved unable to solve our own refugee problem, let alone the world's (how soon till half of the world's population can be defined as being economic or political refugees?)
For every engineer, doctor, or musician we allow to immigrate into this country, how many thousands of unskilled, uneducated, economic refugees are admitted by law or shrug? While the battle for border or no border between the United States and Mexico is being waged and stalemated to the same old same old, how many talented scientists, artists, researchers, engineers, and musicians that have studied and trained in the United States and would love to stay in the United States and contribute their talents to this country are waiting for a green card extension and a chance to become a citizen?
Our immigration system, by design or paralysis, is seemingly designed to allow in a tide of what we already have too much while keeping those who would be really useful out. This stalemated battle over border or no border with Mexico is leaving a lot of educated and higly trained talents either in limbo or on a plane to elsewhere. There is a battle for brains and talent in this competitive world, and we are positioning ourselves perfectly to lose it.
And yes, I am a complete heartless dick for even thinking such thoughts. I plead no contest.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Dec 19, 2014 18:11:25 GMT -5
There is at least an argument that says that H1-B visas allow US companies to hire foreign tech people at below market rates--pay a person less from, say, India, to come to the US and do the work rather than pay the going rate for someone hired locally. A different kind of outsourcing.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 19, 2014 18:43:46 GMT -5
In my idiosyncratic view, I don't want legal or illegal immigrants, although the former bother me less because they obey our laws. I don't care where they're from. We have too many people already. I can't see any argument in favor of increasing the population except from folks who think every decision should turn on what's good for the economy. I don't think that's a sensible outlook.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 19, 2014 18:54:40 GMT -5
In my idiosyncratic view, I don't want legal or illegal immigrants, although the former bother me less because they obey our laws. I don't care where they're from. We have too many people already. I can't see any argument in favor of increasing the population except from folks who think every decision should turn on what's good for the economy. I don't think that's a sensible outlook. I can find a lot to agree with there. In my and your lifetime the US population has doubled. I don't think this is a good thing. When I was growing up in FL there were miles and miles of beaches with nothing but dunes where now there are miles and miles of condominiums. And I don't think that to grow an economy you have to grow a population.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Dec 19, 2014 19:24:26 GMT -5
Doug, you and I both live in an area that depends in part on the Colorado River for water. Shortages loom. If the area had the population of the 1960s, shortages wouldn't loom, and it would be a much better place to live, albeit for fewer people. Many other examples could be offered. Population growth offers a quick buck in return for permanent challenges. Since our society is governed by short-term thinking, the quick buck seems destined to win. It always has.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Dec 19, 2014 19:26:00 GMT -5
There is at least an argument that says that H1-B visas allow US companies to hire foreign tech people at below market rates--pay a person less from, say, India, to come to the US and do the work rather than pay the going rate for someone hired locally. A different kind of outsourcing. As someone who employs H1-Bs, I can say they don't get paid less than the local talent. Given the $15,000 that visa sponsorship costs, they're actually more expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 21:16:48 GMT -5
So 20% of the adults are parents to 75% of the kids? Must be big families. My numbers are obviously not the kind of reliable numbers one might expect from, say a Karl Rove pre-election poll, but to your tag of sarcasm at the end "Must be big families"...you have NO idea. 6-8 children per is not unusual. One or two is. Plus, our overall population is fairly small. This is not the impression I get from census and Indiana Dept. Of Education data. That 3 out of 4 elementary school children in Warsaw, children who, apparently not unusually, have 5 to 7 siblings, are Hispanic/Latino. It is not clearly suggested by the statistics I can find. Perhaps it's a more local phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Dec 20, 2014 15:36:00 GMT -5
There is (I think) a solution to illegal immigration along our southern border.
I'm fine with stiffening enforcement, but I don't think lining the border with soldiers will work and a wall is just an infeasible fancy.
(I recall a SciFi story I read thirty or forty years ago in which soldiers were employed along our border with Mexico in order to stem the tide of refugees attempting to enter this country. But, when faced with a bunch of women and children who were desperate enough to walk forward into a wall of leveled rifles, the soldiers found themselves unable to fire. They ignored their orders and laid down their rifles).
There is really only one way to secure our southern border and that is to somehow improve the economies of our southern neighbors so that there is less reason to leave. Most folks really don't want to leave wherever they are at. Yes, we can make things tough for the illegals that do enter, but as long as their prospects are completely dismal at home and only partially dismal here, here will be better than there. But, if there is somehow made better...
But, and here is the tough part...
We can offer Mexico trade and investment, but in order for those opportunities and offers to work better in the future than they have in the past, Mexico itself has to become more stable and less corrupt. Institutions make a country stable and government makes the institutions (sorry, Doug). And as long as the drug cartels have as much (or more) power as the government, both without and within the Mexican government and its institutions, there will be instability and pervasive corruption.
And there is only one way to defeat the drug cartels and that is to de-fund them. And here is the tough part I alluded to earlier, if we are the drug cartels major market, we have to erase that market. And while I would like to see everyone stop using all drugs except for beer and Scotch, I don't think that will happen. Which means legalizing so many good drugs and selling them so cheaply the crooks in the cartels just can't compete with the crooks operating with government approval (you don't actually eliminate crooks and other bad things, you just incorporate them under one umbrella, the institution of institutions that we call government).
I do have a really hard time with the thought of legalizing more drugs, especially addictive drugs like cocaine. I know the lid is leaky, but a lid is lid, even if it is a leaky lid. But, I also am aware of the prohibition lesson. And it is hard to envision a stable Mexico run by somewhat sorta reliable government and its associated institutions as long as the drug cartels and associated bad guys are in charge of so much of the country.
Mexico really should be able to work. It does have abundant resources. And there is help we can offer, help that is really investment which really could pay off.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 20, 2014 16:54:50 GMT -5
In my idiosyncratic view, I don't want legal or illegal immigrants, although the former bother me less because they obey our laws. I don't care where they're from. We have too many people already. I can't see any argument in favor of increasing the population except from folks who think every decision should turn on what's good for the economy. I don't think that's a sensible outlook. It's written on the statue: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
I think to some extent we live with the legacy of the founding of this nation which was based on a condition of unlimited open spaces. Quite unusual in the modern history of western man. But that legacy lives on. And, as you said, much of our economic vibrance comes from an ever increasing population. So, there's pressure to keep it up. Countries such as those in Europe & Japan, are limited in their ability to expand, and their population isn't growing. You could build a case that the US has not reached that population saturation level yet, but it certainly can and will happen if we continue on the present course. Plus if the climate morphs as many predict, our agricultural abundance will decrease. So, when is enough? Or too much? Maybe 10 years from now. Maybe 25 years ago. Maybe now.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 20, 2014 17:19:05 GMT -5
Seems somewhat reasonable to me Paul.
The big supporters of drug laws are drug suppliers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 1:49:42 GMT -5
Legally. People with authorization to live and work here. The Arizona DACA plaintiffs have such authorization too. The folks in question aren't here legally, They are covered by a 2012 initiative that defers action (deportation) of those who arrived in the country illegally as children. So, I guess I'm curious about the process in the UK (or elsewhere). If one circumvents tne entire process of legal immigration, seeks out and gains employment without any permit, visa, or other authorization, and willfully misrepresents one's residency status to take advantage of social services (education, health care, etc,) - are there really no repercussions? Is said individual allowed to carry on, despite these violations, as if no policies were in place at all? If there are repercusdions, what are they? I know there is a great degree of fluidity between EU members, regarding residency and employment, so for the sake of reasonable comparison, assume we are talking about an immigrant from a non-EU member nation.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 21, 2014 7:22:27 GMT -5
I wonder how a community could appear to have far more immigrants than the most recent census might suggest?
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Dec 21, 2014 8:48:25 GMT -5
. . . , And there is only one way to defeat the drug cartels and that is to de-fund them. And here is the tough part I alluded to earlier, if we are the drug cartels major market, we have to erase that market. And while I would like to see everyone stop using all drugs except for beer and Scotch, I don't think that will happen. Which means legalizing so many good drugs and selling them so cheaply the crooks in the cartels just can't compete with the crooks operating with government approval . . . , As I learned on the Soundhole, legalized pot in the US is more expensive that the stuff you can still get illegally on the street. PS - As Jeff might say, Government can never effectively compete with free enterprise. Not without revenue agents busting up stills. There'd still need to be heavy enforcement of illegal drugs. Government won't compete on price. They'd pile on so many taxes and regulatory approvals that the price would be double street price.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Dec 21, 2014 12:04:55 GMT -5
I know what conservatives want. They want a border that is enforced by law. They want immigrants to enter this country through the legal processes and channels that have been established. They want people that enter the country illegally to be deported. I don't know what liberals want. People that enter the country are not to be deported? Are they are to be given drivers' licenses, food aid, medical care, education, and workplace protection, social security, voting rights? Are those who are currently in the country illegally to be given amnesty? Are those who enter illegally in the future also to be given amnesty. There is to be a border but it is not to be controlled or enforced? How would you feel if your kid's school was impacted by a 30% jump in "minority" enrollment, an enrollment that brings no money, just cost and disruption and fights. Forget about the AP classes and drama and arts, the too little money is being sucked up by ESL classes, remedial Ed classes, remedial remedial Ed classes, and HIspanic culture classes. And every kid of means and ambition is bailing out of the public school system as fast as they can leaving the growing mess behind. And those who can't get out and away? They are so screwed. These are really good questions and I'd like to hear someone take a stab at answering them. As one of the resident "conservatives" I'm not even allowed to ask the questions without the hint that I'm racist. But Paul votes correctly and he's the one asking them. I'd like to hear what liberals want. Clearly it isn't about economic quick fixes when it's doing exactly the opposite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2014 12:51:50 GMT -5
They are covered by a 2012 initiative that defers action (deportation) of those who arrived in the country illegally as children. Which the US authorities in 48 other states and now Arizona concede provides enough of a legal basis for them to be allowed to apply for a US driving license. In the UK if you are a non-citizen, resident here with authorisation to work , then you can get a UK driving license. If you are a non-citizen and do not have that authority or other valid reason to remain, EU citizenship, study, family connection or refugee status for instance, then you will likely fall foul of immigration authorities and may be deported.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Dec 21, 2014 13:01:21 GMT -5
They are covered by a 2012 initiative that defers action (deportation) of those who arrived in the country illegally as children. Which the US authorities in 48 other states and now Arizona concede provides enough of a legal basis for them to be allowed to apply for a US driving license. In the UK if you are a non-citizen, resident here with authorisation to work, then you can get a UK driving license. If you are a non-citizen and do not have that authority or other valid reason to remain, family connection or refugee status for instance, then you will likely fall foul of immigration authorities and may be deported. By giving them legal basis they are committing the crime of aiding a criminal. So any individual who hands them a drivers licence is a criminal guilty of aiding a criminal. Also any one who hires them.
|
|