The Democrat Utopia

[BigRedBuster]

16 hours ago, ZRod said:

 

 

Some how this is all Biden's fault

 

 

 

 

Why don't we go back further than Biden and Trump for more context?

 

Interesting! It's almost like encounters at the southern border had been decreasing for over 15 years. Then they started to increase around 2017/2018, and spike before the pandemic, falling again (pandemic going to pandemic), and then spiking after. Kind of like the trend was already set in motion well before a presidential change.

 

It's also even more interesting when you look at Latin American GDP year by year and see that over all GDP of the region has been decreasing since about 2010. When the above graphs starts trending back up.

 

It's almost like the President of the US has less to do with illegal entry numbers than the economic situations in the countries those people come from.

 

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LCN/latin-america-caribbean-/gdp-growth-rate#:~:text=Latin America %26 Caribbean gdp growth rate for 2020 was -6.67,a 0.26% decline from 2017.

If we really want to stop people coming to the southern border wanting in, we would flood Central American countries with aid. 

[BigRedBuster]

14 hours ago, nic said:

Talk to the BBC. I didn't write the article. And yes the current guy always gets blamed.

Which is why we are such an ignorant voting populace. 

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

If we really want to stop people coming to the southern border wanting in, we would flood Central American countries with aid. 

Sounds expensive. They should probably send America money first 

[BigRedBuster]

32 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Sounds expensive. They should probably send America money first 

The immigration issue is being very expensive the way it is.  So, spend money there, fix immigration.  People are happier in their own country and we still get some people immigrating for the work force.

 

I'd rather spend it in these countries than some we spend it in.

[ZRod]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

The immigration issue is being very expensive the way it is.  So, spend money there, fix immigration.  People are happier in their own country and we still get some people immigrating for the work force.

 

I'd rather spend it in these countries than some we spend it in.

You're far too logical and reasonable.

[knapplc]

We need immigrants, though. And preventing them from coming here hurts the economy.

 

International migrants who seek protection also participate in the economy. Thus the policy of the United States to drastically reduce refugee and asylum-seeker arrivals from 2017 to 2020 might have substantial and ongoing economic consequences. This paper places conservative bounds on those effects by critically reviewing the research literature. It goes beyond prior estimates by including ripple effects beyond the wages earned or taxes paid directly by migrants. The sharp reduction in US refugee admissions starting in 2017 costs the overall US economy today over $9.1 billion per year ($30,962 per missing refugee per year, on average) and costs public coffers at all levels of government over $2.0 billion per year ($6,844 per missing refugee per year, on average) net of public expenses. Large reductions in the presence of asylum seekers during the same period likewise carry ongoing costs in the billions of dollars per year. These estimates imply that barriers to migrants seeking protection, beyond humanitarian policy concerns, carry substantial economic costs.

 

[Danny Bateman]

4 hours ago, ZRod said:

How is that a free for all? People have been crossing the border in mass for decades and decades. And there are BP agents apprehending them, right?

 

Have we considered that right-wing media sources have just focused on this issue much more heavily since they found out they've got an increasingly anti-immigrant voter base they're reaching?

 

It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation. Which happened first?

[ZRod]

18 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Have we considered that right-wing media sources have just focused on this issue much more heavily since they found out they've got an increasingly anti-immigrant voter base they're reaching?

 

It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation. Which happened first?

It's not the right wing media though. The same stories show up in all median sources.

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

We need immigrants, though. And preventing them from coming here hurts the economy.

 

International migrants who seek protection also participate in the economy. Thus the policy of the United States to drastically reduce refugee and asylum-seeker arrivals from 2017 to 2020 might have substantial and ongoing economic consequences. This paper places conservative bounds on those effects by critically reviewing the research literature. It goes beyond prior estimates by including ripple effects beyond the wages earned or taxes paid directly by migrants. The sharp reduction in US refugee admissions starting in 2017 costs the overall US economy today over $9.1 billion per year ($30,962 per missing refugee per year, on average) and costs public coffers at all levels of government over $2.0 billion per year ($6,844 per missing refugee per year, on average) net of public expenses. Large reductions in the presence of asylum seekers during the same period likewise carry ongoing costs in the billions of dollars per year. These estimates imply that barriers to migrants seeking protection, beyond humanitarian policy concerns, carry substantial economic costs.

 

I said fix immigration so we get them. 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I said fix immigration so we get them. 

 

That was a reply to the "ZOMG WE HAVE OPN BORDERS!!!1!1!!" people. I know you know we need immigrants. 

[ZRod]

21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That was a reply to the "ZOMG WE HAVE OPN BORDERS!!!1!1!!" people. I know you know we need immigrants. 

It'd be interesting to try to correlate the need for workers to the decline in immigration numbers (assume there was a decline). That's something I'll look into I think (lest someone say I'm lazy again ).

[BigRedBuster]

21 minutes ago, ZRod said:

It'd be interesting to try to correlate the need for workers to the decline in immigration numbers (assume there was a decline). That's something I'll look into I think (lest someone say I'm lazy again ).

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ND-Immigration&gclid=CjwKCAjwyaWZBhBGEiwACslQo-UJ4RUd3vHDCoEEuZKCti0j5K_BL-sk9tiethx_XE5scEp-CjP0ChoCo-gQAvD_BwE

 

You have three things working against us having enough workers.

 

1) Boomers retiring.

2) Birth rate has dropped and not keeping up with deaths or retirement.

3) Drop in immigration.

 

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/12/net-international-migration-at-lowest-levels-in-decades.html

[BigRedBuster]

Idiot. 
 

 

[nic]

On 9/19/2022 at 10:46 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I guess. Again, it's a matter of equivalencies. It goes both ways but I don't think history will look back upon  conservative social norms sympathetically. Just in my lifetime some mainstream beliefs are already looked back on as horrific. And some of the things that threaten conservatives today just strike me as basic human decency. A transgender swimmer or an affirmative action employee might seem a thorny issue, but not the stuff that threatens the Republic. 

I wish all people are treated with respect, but some of the solutions just seem nonsensical to me. ....Digital design engineer by trade, and for those who know the trade, it's very binary. 

[nic]

On 9/20/2022 at 5:44 AM, ZRod said:

How is that a free for all? People have been crossing the border in mass for decades and decades. And there are BP agents apprehending them, right?

Trying to apprehend...I think we are setting records with those that got away and crossed this year. There have been other bad years.  I would like it to stop and be put under control. I Don't have a solution, but what we have in place doesn't work.