patrick.net

Those are Slaves... I mean, guest workers who have their passports taken and regularly beaten and abused. Kuwaitis flipped out when the government mandated a single day off for "Domestic (Slave) Laborers".

They were not abducted from their native countries, but volunteered to go to countries like Kuwait. H1B visa recipients are not exactly free labor either, but they still come.

Also, Germany, Russia, France, UK, Brazil, etc. are Real Regular to Large sized countries, not little Sultanates like Kuwait or Qatar with a long history of living off slave labor and producing nothing but repacking exports between east and west with a markup

The real difference is money / monetary system. Huge numbers of Brazilians and Canadians immigrated to the US in the past few decades, for the same reason that huge numbers in the middle of the US migrated to NYC and SF, both of which are closer to the source of the global monetary system. $2 a day was a huge amount of money at the time of Wyatt Earp, who bought his house for $20 a century and half ago. The same house would be worth at least $200k today, due to monetary inflation. Monetary inflation benefits those who get the new money first (spending the money before inflation propagates through the economy), at the expense of the people who get it later (having to spend against the inflated prices). That's why people flock to regions privileged with new money creation. US happens to be the primary source of new money creation for the entire world, as our primary export is the dollar itself.

Which is why, despite tepid GDP growth since 2000, we have unjustifiably high, 1910s levels of Foreign Born. It's also why housing costs have exploded.

Tepid GDP growth is part of the cause not the result of high number of immigrants. Whenever the US hits recession, one of the solutions is (temporarily) increasing immigration: recession is the result of pricing error/adjustment, jobs not taking place because the buyers want lower price, ergo immigrants providing that source of lower priced labor, so that necessary work can be done while people adjust to new prices. Housing cost is not high in the interior of the US. The coastal rent is high due to government subsidies and zoning control, combined with the monetary system shifting population from the interior to the coastal cities. There is a lot of vacancy and abandoned housing in the middle of the country. Real estate price high is not necessarily a result of housing demand at all, but speculation demand: lower interest results in higher asset price. Foreigners buying up US real estate and other assets at the peak of the market then sell them a few years later in a crash actually benefit Americans, and is the most harmless way of dollar recycling: just like Japanese did in the early 1990's, and Mercedes did buying Chrysler. Those repricing cycles enabled Americans to receive tons of Japanese cars, electronics and German cars for free!

you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.

jazz_music says

Democrats open borders using The same tear gas used on migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border on Sunday was also used under the Obama administration?

Figures from Homeland Security show the tear gas was deployed almost 80 times during Obama's later years

Does tear gas open the borders?

Herdingcats says

Because niether party wants to upset the status quo. See how easy it is to answer a question, see how that works?. Now can you do it? Why didn't the Republicans?

Where did I say that NO ONE in the GOP supports illegals openly or tacitly?

I'll wait.

Rocketmanjoe says

I don't think this is true. Why can't the democrats advocate for open borders? What law would they be breaking?

Oh they do advocate for it. That much is true.

But they cannot attempt to put it into "letter of law", unless they somehow were able to dominate every branch of government and go through the arduous process of the laws governing who is responsible for defending the nations borders.

So they continue with "abolish ice" because "racism" or "Sanctuary Cities" which are ways to undercut national border sovereignty without "putting it into law".

Herdingcats says

Threats of censorship? Why because I'm right that the democrats don't have an open boarder policy?

@patrick this is wrong and should not be allowed at Patrick.net

I'm not threatening. I'm telling you, if you're here to just troll (and I never said you were or not), the leash could be tightened. So don't troll and there won't be any problems.

Jazz hates everything I've ever posted. Yet I commended him for proper spelling.
Kinda blows your post right out of the water...
Herdingcats says

BlueSardine says

you earn a +1 for spelling 'borders' correctly.

Its interesting pour spelling, isn't pointed out when one is presived to be on you're teem.

Maybe you outta heard eyeballs...

Maybe you outta herd eyeballs

Herdingcats says

For open borders? No evidence has been presented as such. They advocate for passion for those that have made it here.

lol

"Passion for those that have made it here"

Herdingcats says

My answer is that a wall won't stop it. So a wall doesn't solve the problem.

Of course a wall works, there is no debate. arguing that a wall and tight border security doesn't stop illegal immigration is like denying that 1+1=2. The fact that some immigrants have other routes available they can try doesn't mean the wall doesn't do its job. Israels wall works close to perfectly, so do their airport controls. The fact that pretty much every country has some sort of walls, border fences/gates at their neighboring countries is clear prove how well they actually can and do work. In fact walls prevented people not only from entering but also exiting the iron curtain to the former soviet union for decades. Please.

Herdingcats says

Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.

There have been many projections that show the wall would be cost positive vs the costs of allowing more illegals to leech on public services.

Herdingcats says

If that is true then why didn't they do it in 2008-2010 when they had their chance to?

Because they didn't have enough power to override the constitution which democrats would happily do if they could.

Herdingcats says

What? Are you just pulling shit out of your ass now?

I actually know how laws work. :(

Also that was borderline a personal attack. Nuked for breaking the rules. :(

Herdingcats says

mell says

doesn't stop illegal immigration

Nobody is saying it won't stop some of the illegal immigration. Only that it won't stop all illegal immigration. How much will it stop and is it worth the cost? That is the issue.

Fine, so people with "feelz" (Dems, SJWs) say it's not worth the cost while the overwhelming majority of countries are happy with the ROI and keep their walls - some even strongly enforcing them lately such as Hungary, Poland etc. - clearly indicates the "feelz" are wrong on this. It's highly unlikely - close to impossible - that all countries suddenly are gripped by mass hysteria. No, they did the math and came to the conclusion that the ROI of living without hostile rapefugees is worth every penny.

The man's presentation is full of impeccable information, logic, precision and reasoning. You ought to know by now that that doesn't work worth shit as an argument.

DASKAA says

passport system, that didn't exist until WWII

.

Not true.

I was wrong, WWI.

Herdingcats says

Are you talking about amendments now. I was referring to Congress having the ability to write laws not amendments.

Congress cannot write a law saying "open borders", you should read how the laws work.

Herdingcats says

Me personally, I'd call that an amendment not a law.

What would the open borders amendment look like, how would it pass?

Ceffer says

The man's presentation is full of impeccable information, logic, precision and reasoning. You ought to know by now that that doesn't work worth shit as an argument.

Apparently not.

Well. Uh.
Yeah!
Herdingcats says

Not really, I said pour spelling isn't pointed out by the same team members

Herdingcats says

My answer is that a wall won't stop it. So a wall doesn't solve the problem.

But it will greatly reduce illegal border crossings, who are the other half. It will also keep drug and human smuggling down.

Of course walls work, that's why you have a walls and a door in your home. There are scores of walls in the world.

"The wall will only stop half of all illegal crossings" = This treatment "only' reduces the severity of symptoms by 50%, so don't bother..

If you were suffering from issues that prevented you from doing anything, wouldn't a 50% reduction in pain be extremely helpful? Maybe you could get out of bed and do some light chores and enjoy life a little.

Herdingcats says

Good question. How would they do that?

Exactly my point. So instead they use "sanctuary cities", "abolish ice", or "catch release".

Same effect, but avoids the nastiness of legality.

Herdingcats says

But I've yet to ever hear of the way Congress "with enough power" can override the Constitution

Bingo. Which is why your original point about 'congress' and open borders made zero sense tatupu.

Herdingcats says

Not one policy that has anything doing with Democrats wanting an open border has been presented only policies that encourage people to cross borders have been presented this is not the same thing.

It's the same effect, for sure. You're the ONLY one arguing that it's not.

Reality says

They were not abducted from their native countries, but volunteered to go to countries like Kuwait. H1B visa recipients are not exactly free labor either, but they still come.

They're enticed under false pretenses. When they arrive penniless and desperate, that's when the abuse starts.

They used to do similar shit in the West, entices people back East to come West to work in the mines, forests, and farms. Some desperate dude spent his last few on a train ticket, got there, and they'd say, "Well, Wallace, we're out of the $2/day jobs. But I'm really nice and I'll pay you $1/day and deduct room & board at my company store where everything is marked up 300%. Maybe by the end of the harvest season six 60-hour weeks from now you'll have just enough to buy a ticket back to Cleveland from Bozeman"

When Qatar has the World Cup, the same Neoliberal Media that gave the public 24-7 in-depth reporting on old Russian Toilets will studiously ignore the huge numbers of slaves/indentured servants involved in making the World Cup possible.

Alas, when you land in Doha, the goalposts have shifted slightly. This much becomes apparent when you’re handed a helmet and a high-viz jacket and told to present yourself at a building site at 6am the following morning. You’re not working as a clerk in an office, you’re building a football stadium. They’re not quite sure who told you the $400 a month figure, but it’s actually going to be $200, less miscellaneous costs. The recruitment fee isn’t $200 as you’d agreed, but $2000, plus the cost of your flight to Qatar. Your crisp new passport is confiscated. You cannot quit your job. You cannot leave the country. And before you have even clocked in for your first shift, you owe your employer the equivalent of two years’ wages.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/world-cup-2022-qatars-workers-slaves-building-mausoleums-stadiums-modern-slavery-kafala-a7980816.html

It's an ancient scam, used by the VOC, by Mining Companies, and now Qatar.

Herdingcats says

So let me get this straight, You are saying that if there were open borders the same amount of people would come to the US as those policies encourage now to come in illegally?

Ha, no.

I'm saying a crap ton of people are coming over already due to those policies, and if the Democrats get their way, even more would come over sure, but it's the same effect in that people are flowing over the border en masse. You're just playing semantics between a 20 foot tidal wave versus a 100 foot tidal wave.

Both are shitty.

Herdingcats says

How can it be the same effect if a higher volumes of people cross the border under an open border policy?

When you get punched in the head 1 time, you get hurt.

When you get punched in the head 3 times, you get hurt.

You're playing semantics (typical troll tactic as you well know tatupu).

You have a small hole in a dam, you have a leak.

You have a big hole in a dam, you have a bigger leak.

Same effect, just a gradation.

Herdingcats says

They advocate for passion for those that have made it here.

Passion or compassion?

Herdingcats says

Why was there less illegals in the US in 2016 than in 2008 if Democrats support an open border policy?

Easy answer: Change the way illegals are counted.

When you say "less" are you referring to the quality of the illegals? If so it should be "lesser." If you are referring to a countable quantity of illegals then the correct word is "fewer."

Herdingcats says

None has been linked.

This is a great example of iwogian logic.

Herdingcats says

Does ICE = boarder patrol? What do sectuary cities have to do with open boarders? Or what does SF registering illegals to vote for education issues at we're their legal kids go to school have to do with open boarders?

But iwog was a better speller.

Herdingcats says

why didn't the Democrats do it in 2008-2010 when they had control of Congress

Too busy bailing out the banks and subsidizing the insurance companies.

ICE does not patrol bed and breakfast establishments...
Onvacation says

Does ICE = boarder patrol?

Herdingcats says

The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States was lower in 2016 than at any time since 2004. If the Democrats really truly wanted an open border policy why did the amount of illegals drop so drastically under Obama?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

How do you know that for sure? That article is basing it on "Estimates". If they entered illegally and weren't caught, how does anyone know they're here? Is Pew good at counting ghosts?

Does Pew call all these illegals on their cell phones to ask them if they are in the country illegally?

www.youtube.com/embed/HSK3WvIPtBs

Herdingcats says

Also above I saw that I added an e to sat. I meant "sat on their hands .

And it's "were" not "was" in your original. :-)

Herdingcats says

So no response to the fact that there was fewer illegal aliens at the end of Obama's term than at the start?

How about the fact that the amount of ICE agents increased during Obama's term. Wouldn't one expect the amount of agents to decrease if as was opined above the democrats wanted to abolish ICE?

(1) Change how you count illegals. Or don't count them at all, for that matter.
(2) More agents, but not allowed to do their job effectively. Obama agents are merely handing out bottles of water and seeing to it that illegals get on the right bus headed towards their illegal relatives. Much more effective would be 1/4 the number of agents that are allowed to shoot on sight.

I realize the above response is "embellished," but you get the point.

No but they really need to reform the illegal immigrant policy in regards to the illegals that have several years working in the USA first. How about making the illegals legal by having them fingerprinted, retinal scans or whatever and having them agree to sign documents stating that they will not apply for any govt economic programs and also charge them a fee which can be paid in payments...When they have payed in full, they receive a work permit and be on the road to becoming a legal citizen if they follow the rules. This way there is no worry that they are going to just live off of welfare

komputodo says

No but they really need to reform the illegal immigrant policy in regards to the illegals that have several years working in the USA first. How about making the illegals legal by having them fingerprinted, retinal scans or whatever and having them agree to sign documents stating that they will not apply for any govt economic programs and also charge them a fee which can be paid in payments...When they have payed in full, they receive a work permit and be on the road to becoming a legal citizen if they follow the rules. This way there is no worry that they are going to just live off of welfare

Why not just follow the procedures for legal immigration? Why cater to people who cut in line?