Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that the agricultural industry basically has a slave caste as its backbone. There will be no lasting solution as long as that's true. Dismantling that system was good for America back in the 1800s, and it would be good if it happened again today.
Don't get me wrong - I agree that it being built on an exploitable underclass is bad, but I highly doubt concerns over that is the driving factor behind the calls for mass deportations by the majority of people.
Furthermore, all mass deportation will do is burn a mountain of money on kicking out people who pay things like sales tax while also driving out their labor. Would it not make more sense to simply offer a path to citizenship to the people who clearly wish to work and give them the legal protections they should have AND get them paying taxes and integrating into society as full US citizens?
There's no reason to harm innocent people if your only concern is about "fixing the problem of a slave caste," especially when what I have said is essentially what we did the last time we got rid of one (Jim Crow, share cropping, etc. notwithstanding).
It isn't, but it's one of the systemic issues that makes illegal immigration as prevalent as it is. If the law against employing illegal immigrants was strictly enforced, there would be little incentive to continue using them. Then there would be less incentive to illegally immigrate (no job opportunities so no money getting sent back to family, for example).
To your point, a larger problem to the average person is the resources that are spent on them, and on asylum seekers whose treatment was changed significantly under Biden. There's now a six-year wait time before an asylum case can be heard in court, and as long as they applied for it before they entered the country, they're allowed to stay that whole time. Major cities have been swamped with migrants as a result of not just this policy, but also the governor of Texas bussing them to sanctuary cities. They've been given priority treatment in these places instead of homeless citizens who need help just as much as them - schools have been closed and students shifted to online learning to house migrants, for example. Migrants are given financial aid in the form of food stamps or even prepaid debit cards. On top of that, their children are placed in American schools and given healthcare. I strongly doubt that the government is making more money on sales tax from migrants than it is spending on their welfare. This isn't an indictment of the migrants themselves needing help, it's just a criticism of where our elected officials place their priorities.
I support reforming the legal immigration process. I have numerous friends from foreign countries who have a great interest in moving here, but because of things like the H1b lottery system, it's next to impossible even if you're highly qualified. Still, that's no excuse for opening the doors to people who sidestep that whole affair and get more assistance from the government than legal immigrants do.
The American people are being harmed by the massive influx of migrants. The longer this goes on, the worse it will get. Should a country put the needs of its own citizens before other countries', or the other way around?
I agree. Perhaps punishing the companies that exploit migrants labor harshly would be an effective option, though I highly doubt the incoming (or really, current) administration will do such a thing. Mass deportations "treat" the symptoms, but not the cause.
I support reforming the legal immigration process. I have numerous friends from foreign countries who have a great interest in moving here, but because of things like the H1b lottery system, it's next to impossible even if you're highly qualified. Still, that's no excuse for opening the doors to people who sidestep that whole affair and get more assistance from the government than legal immigrants do.
I am a bit dubious of several of your claims, but I do think that the process needs to be reformed, though I suspect in a different way. What's the fastest way to get rid of illegal immigrants? Making them citizens. Dramatically stepping up the process in making people citizens with investment into it would cost quite a bit of money, but would have much better outcomes than a mass deportation plan.
Getting a massive influx of people all at once would certainly cause disruptions (though, again, at least as many as mass deportations), but getting tons of new taxpayers who buy into the whole system makes a lot more sense to me than using them as cheap labor. Furthermore, a system that distributes immigrants around the country more evenly would alleviate much of the issues with overcrowding and whatnot, while also limiting the issues of creating a "ghetto" of sorts (taking lessons from the past, "Little Italy" came about as a way for immigrants to protect themselves from the vast majority of people who were hostile to them. So dispersing people and making them feel welcome would eliminate much of that problem).
I can sort of agree that Americans are being harmed, insofar as government services are being strained, but the fix there is to strengthen said systems so they operate efficiently. Look at Indiana's BMV and how efficient it is because of Mitch Daniels for proof of what a well-funded government agency can do.
It seems like we're more or less in agreement on the first point. There's just too much money in keeping the status quo right now. I'll leave it at that.
Here's a few sources for you. The sources for migrant aid are specific to New York City.
I don't think the county should import so many people who will become such a burden on our welfare infrastructure when we're already struggling to take care of our own people.
That may be true. Granting it though, is it the best approach? Sure, I believe some leniency should be given to people who have been here for years, like those who were brought here as children and have since grown up. But like the current asylum system, that could create precedent for migrants to enter the country illicitly and get forgiveness easier than they could have gotten permission. Expanding visas and streamlining the process for green cards and citizenship is on the table for sure. But in my opinion, applicants should have to wait in their home countries before entering, and stricter scrutiny should be applied to asylum cases.
That makes more sense to me as well, but we already have that influx and it's already causing problems throughout the country. If we start giving blanket amnesty, then this will encourage others to do the same later down the line. It isn't sustainable.
There's only so much that increased efficiency can do with a spike like this. It's severely dysfunctional at this point, not only because of the influx but also because of the poor allocation of government resources. I'd love for everyone to get the help they need, but we have a huge problem even without the migrant crisis.
Very interesting. I do suspect NYC is uniquely struggling with these things because of how expensive it is to live in and housing/space being at a premium, whereas areas in, say, the Midwest would theoretically be able to take on a few new families in each smaller town without a huge disruption, like the Haitian immigrants in Ohio (granted there was some adjustment, ofc).
This is a rational stance to have, BUT I should note that the US struggles to take care of its people in large part because of how we manage things like healthcare. Privatization has made the system awful (as evidenced most recently by UnitedHealthcare) and bloated beyond belief. That said, I don't think the Republican party will do anything to fix the problem. Their history of cutting government spending and privatization generally leaves worse outcomes for American citizens. Furthermore, the current system for thing such as disability effectively forces people to remain poor, creating a vicious cycle of poverty and lack of proper care (because having healthcare tied to a job screws over those who cannot work). If we made our existing systems more robust by adopting universal healthcare and assisting people who are out of work more, I suspect we'd be more able to absorb an influx of people. Furthermore, the issues of handing things out to migrants such as welfare, I suspect, are because of the difficulties in getting employment for migrants with no means of obtaining jobs due to their status as illegal. Would giving a sort of baseline assistance in getting work and integrating not accomplish the goal of helping people "leave the nest" and pay taxes once they arrive?
I think granting it is at the very least probably cheaper than burning money on going after random individuals in a massive operation that will disrupt the entire economy. Moreover, creating an intake system where people are housed and taught the basics of how to operate in the US for a brief time would likely have better outcomes than simply dumping people into a random town. As for avoiding an influx, you aren't wrong that it may have some effect, but ultimately, I doubt making things harsher will do much to deter people who are desperate. When it comes to making people wait in their home countries...I don't think that's feasible, as a lot of people fleeing are doing so from violence from cartels/gangs, oppressive regimes, and/or problems such as famine/drought/etc. We would effectively be killing many - just as we did to the Jews fleeing the Holocaust in the 30s (seriously, it's a super fucked up story). We need to design a better process for "holding" asylum seekers somehow, and I am admittedly not sure of the best way to do that, but I am confident we can create an ethical system to do so.
Well, one of the ways to fix the problem is to take a hard stand on fighting climate change. There is going to be a massive rise in refugees in the next few decades as the effects of climate change worsen, and short of simply massacring people at the border, I don't really see any other way to fix the problem than integrating them (which may not even be possible if things get as bad as some projections say). Short of some kind of drastic action like colonizing space, we don't have many options.
The system is incredibly dysfunctional, sure, but really, we don't have any choice but to fix it. One of the reasons human society has developed so far is because of increases in capacity to solve problems, always outstripping the problems themselves. To accept defeat, so to speak, means we are no longer able to do that, and our civilization is doomed.
Soap boxing aside, it comes down to 2 points: 1) we have a problem that is solvable now that needs addressing before the "real" show starts in a few decades, and 2) the Republican party is fundamentally unable to solve the problem as it currently stands. That's not to say Republicans are stupid necessarily, but the entire party is in the grips of a personality cult surrounded by wealthy oligarchs. The "simple" solutions offered by "let's just mass deport them" will not fix the issue and will almost certainly make things worse. The same with monied interests having thoroughly infected our political system (both parties are guilty, but the Republicans have shown to be even more openly against stopping them) - these giant companies benefit from the massive amounts of cheap labor they can exploit out of immigrants, and I highly doubt a massive deportation action will hit them, given how close they are to the centers of power (in fact, I suspect it would be used as a cudgel to smash competitors).
People's concerns about how to fix the problem of illegal immigration are valid (insofar as they should be addressed with evidence), but at some point, we need to accept that our current system is broken and the fix isn't to use fear to bludgeon the problem to death - we need real steps taken to address both the social and economic sides of the problem, and we will likely not see that done under a Conservative* government that has been hijacked by the richest among us.
I generally agree with you that the system as it is doesn't work, and I'm grateful you've shared these points. I'm sorry to leave it here, but I recently developed a problem with my hands that makes typing on my phone difficult; that last message was a struggle. Thank you for the calm and rational discussion, and I hope that civil conversations like this become the norm.
Understandable. I am happy to rationally discuss things with those who are willing to do so: I hope other people read it and use it to learn!