9 ms·

I think we have a crossed wire here. A border wall won't prevent any nurses from entering the country. A border wall is explicitly for illegal immigration, lega

I think we have a crossed wire here. A border wall won't prevent any nurses from entering the country. A border wall is explicitly for illegal immigration, legal immigrants just come in the front door. Typically when people say "They do the jobs that Americans won't do" they are talking about things like dish washing, construction labor and farm work. The fact of the matter is Americans won't do those jobs (at the price offered) because they have other options that pay better, offer greater advancement, job security or are less damaging to their bodies. I posit that if you gave illegal immigrants the same options as Americans they would probably make a similar decision. Allowing skilled labor to enter the country is generally beneficial, having two sets of rules for different co-existing populations is not.

dragontamer 8y ago
Hmm, it seems that my root reply was poorly aimed. Reading through the comments from the top again, I think I meant to reply to someone else. Oh well, can't change that anymore. > A border wall won't prevent any nurses from entering the country With that being said, my current location is very far away from the border wall, thousands of miles north. I posit that the border wall won't help anybody in my area at all. In my experience, when talking to people who are pro-Wall, it isn't the border that they're interested in. They are generally more rural folk who see great importance in cultural homogeneity. Sure, it sounds great to city-folk to see and experience new cultures. But when you're out on the docks trying to warn people about an incoming storm... and those people don't understand English... and you don't know of anyone nearby who can help you translate (and those people WILL DIE if they go out during the storm), it leads to stressful moments. The "wall" isn't what people want. Its a political rally cry. What people want is for other politicians to understand the importance of cultural homogeneity, especially in rural situations. People in this town should speak English. People in this town should understand boating safety. Etc. etc. There isn't anyone else in the town who can help, so identifying the core cultural requirements to survive and help each other out is important. And finally, what people want is the ability to represent this thought without being called racist. --------- That's my experience on the matter. As such, Democrats are correct to point out the folly of the Wall: it doesn't actually solve any of the problems that Trump's base wants (excepting the small portion of Trump's base which actually live on the border). Or more specifically, the problems I've identified from the people I've talked to at least. I could be wrong, but... that's my understanding of things for now. The problem with Democrats is that they can't see the benefits of cultural homogeneity, likely because they don't live in the rural areas which benefit from these alternative policies. ------------ In any case, the Wall addresses no actual problem. Its fully a distraction. Even if the wall is built, it won't change the Democrat's point of view (or lead to greater understanding between the political parties).
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  I agree that a wall isn't all that effective for solving this issue. Leaving the laws the same, something like the purposed "tech wall"[0] a combination of machine learning and sensors would probably be more cost effective for the stated purpose. That said leaving things as they are is rather inhumane and since I've been alive I have never seen a serious effort to change our immigration polices from either side, instead it seems like a great deal of effort to maintain the current slave caste system. I don't blame the people coming here, I blame the people encouraging them to do so and then denying them rights when they arrive. [0]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/13/democrats-now-back-george-w-bush-technological-wal/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/13/democrats-n...
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    I think there's something to be said about the manner in which Trump is building the wall. Trump is declaring an emergency, to mobilize Pentagon funds to build the wall. Imagine if Obama declared a "Climate Change Emergency" to take money from the military towards fighting climate change. This is not an America that anyone should support. This is a colossal overreach in power for an issue that most people will agree is a lol rallying cry that no one actually expected to happen.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Cities and urban areas tend to lean democratic and also tend to have the least amount of 'cultural homogeneity' due to population Dynamics and how immigrants tend to move towards city areas. That phrase is a slightly nicer way of explaining the racism and xenophobia that grips the rural areas, to the point of fearing that immigrants are taking away a culture that never really existed in the first place.
  - dragontamer 8y ago
    Don't get me wrong, there's definitely racism and xenophobia in rural areas. Pretty much every Confederate Flag that flies reminds me of that fact. But there are non-racist and non-xenophobic people out there who want cultural homogeneity. And after talking with some people who fit in that category, I personally feel like they have a point. The fact is, rural centers CANNOT serve the needs of an immigrant population, and we probably shouldn't force it upon them. I've visited some areas like this: 5000 people total for many, many square miles. Entire counties that have fewer people living there than my freaking neighborhood, or a single city-block in New York City. These places have a single "hospital" with less than 10-rooms, and a single church to serve the religious needs for the community. Don't even think about X-Rays or anything "specialized" unless you're willing to drive 2+ hours away. There are issues supporting a popular Christian religion already, let alone a less common one. The communities are relatively poor: they can't afford to build higher levels of infrastructure than what they have. Asking those communities to accept people who speak another language, or worship another religion is asking a LOT from that community. -------------- Obviously, racism and xenophobia are bad. But there's something to be said about the benefits of a homogeneous culture in Rural America. Its financially cheaper to only cater your town towards one kind of culture. Be it language, religion, culture, or other issue. ------------- Now, something to be said is that Urban centers, such as the area I live in, CAN accept immigrants with open arms. And Urban centers not only thrive from the increased activity, they grow richer and everyone benefits. Part of it is that migrants from Latin America are typically Catholic, and my area has plenty of Catholic + Spanish-only masses around. Spanish is taught in virtually every school as an optional elective, I can (and have) give basic directions like "Where's the Bathroom" or tell important information in Spanish, thanks to my elementary school + high school education. (I stumble a lot, and probably speak worse than a 3-year old, but it gets the job done). So I can, as well as my community in general, support a mass of Spanish-speaking immigrants in a way that other centers in this country cannot. I think formalizing these principles can ease a lot of concerns for Americans. If Urban centers worked with ICE to accept illegal immigrants from other parts of the country, then we probably can solve this issue. Ex: Imagine New York City saying "We'll accept 100,000 illegal immigrants from ICE, to prevent them from being deported". This is 1.1% of NYC's total population, so its a large number but otherwise a drop in the bucket. This sort of thing already happens. San Francisco declares itself to be an "enemy of ICE" and declares itself to be a "sanctuary city". That's fine, the city is allowed to run itself the way it wants. Formalizing the concept would ease over a lot of the Urban vs Rural divide that this country is having. Anyway, San Francisco's leadership is obviously trying to tell immigrants (even illegal ones) to come and live in its city. https://sfmayor.org/sanctuary-city https://sfmayor.org/sanctuary-city The state in which I live in is heavily biased towards "sanctuary city" status. And I think it works for my local culture and local area.

dragontamer 8y ago

Hmm, it seems that my root reply was poorly aimed. Reading through the comments from the top again, I think I meant to reply to someone else. Oh well, can't change that anymore. > A border wall won't prevent any nurses from entering the country With that being said, my current location is very far away from the border wall, thousands of miles north. I posit that the border wall won't help anybody in my area at all. In my experience, when talking to people who are pro-Wall, it isn't the border that they're interested in. They are generally more rural folk who see great importance in cultural homogeneity. Sure, it sounds great to city-folk to see and experience new cultures. But when you're out on the docks trying to warn people about an incoming storm... and those people don't understand English... and you don't know of anyone nearby who can help you translate (and those people WILL DIE if they go out during the storm), it leads to stressful moments. The "wall" isn't what people want. Its a political rally cry. What people want is for other politicians to understand the importance of cultural homogeneity, especially in rural situations. People in this town should speak English. People in this town should understand boating safety. Etc. etc. There isn't anyone else in the town who can help, so identifying the core cultural requirements to survive and help each other out is important. And finally, what people want is the ability to represent this thought without being called racist. --------- That's my experience on the matter. As such, Democrats are correct to point out the folly of the Wall: it doesn't actually solve any of the problems that Trump's base wants (excepting the small portion of Trump's base which actually live on the border). Or more specifically, the problems I've identified from the people I've talked to at least. I could be wrong, but... that's my understanding of things for now. The problem with Democrats is that they can't see the benefits of cultural homogeneity, likely because they don't live in the rural areas which benefit from these alternative policies. ------------ In any case, the Wall addresses no actual problem. Its fully a distraction. Even if the wall is built, it won't change the Democrat's point of view (or lead to greater understanding between the political parties).

fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
I agree that a wall isn't all that effective for solving this issue. Leaving the laws the same, something like the purposed "tech wall"[0] a combination of machine learning and sensors would probably be more cost effective for the stated purpose. That said leaving things as they are is rather inhumane and since I've been alive I have never seen a serious effort to change our immigration polices from either side, instead it seems like a great deal of effort to maintain the current slave caste system. I don't blame the people coming here, I blame the people encouraging them to do so and then denying them rights when they arrive. [0]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/13/democrats-now-back-george-w-bush-technological-wal/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/13/democrats-n...
- dragontamer 8y ago
  I think there's something to be said about the manner in which Trump is building the wall. Trump is declaring an emergency, to mobilize Pentagon funds to build the wall. Imagine if Obama declared a "Climate Change Emergency" to take money from the military towards fighting climate change. This is not an America that anyone should support. This is a colossal overreach in power for an issue that most people will agree is a lol rallying cry that no one actually expected to happen.
fzeroracer 8y ago
Cities and urban areas tend to lean democratic and also tend to have the least amount of 'cultural homogeneity' due to population Dynamics and how immigrants tend to move towards city areas. That phrase is a slightly nicer way of explaining the racism and xenophobia that grips the rural areas, to the point of fearing that immigrants are taking away a culture that never really existed in the first place.
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Don't get me wrong, there's definitely racism and xenophobia in rural areas. Pretty much every Confederate Flag that flies reminds me of that fact. But there are non-racist and non-xenophobic people out there who want cultural homogeneity. And after talking with some people who fit in that category, I personally feel like they have a point. The fact is, rural centers CANNOT serve the needs of an immigrant population, and we probably shouldn't force it upon them. I've visited some areas like this: 5000 people total for many, many square miles. Entire counties that have fewer people living there than my freaking neighborhood, or a single city-block in New York City. These places have a single "hospital" with less than 10-rooms, and a single church to serve the religious needs for the community. Don't even think about X-Rays or anything "specialized" unless you're willing to drive 2+ hours away. There are issues supporting a popular Christian religion already, let alone a less common one. The communities are relatively poor: they can't afford to build higher levels of infrastructure than what they have. Asking those communities to accept people who speak another language, or worship another religion is asking a LOT from that community. -------------- Obviously, racism and xenophobia are bad. But there's something to be said about the benefits of a homogeneous culture in Rural America. Its financially cheaper to only cater your town towards one kind of culture. Be it language, religion, culture, or other issue. ------------- Now, something to be said is that Urban centers, such as the area I live in, CAN accept immigrants with open arms. And Urban centers not only thrive from the increased activity, they grow richer and everyone benefits. Part of it is that migrants from Latin America are typically Catholic, and my area has plenty of Catholic + Spanish-only masses around. Spanish is taught in virtually every school as an optional elective, I can (and have) give basic directions like "Where's the Bathroom" or tell important information in Spanish, thanks to my elementary school + high school education. (I stumble a lot, and probably speak worse than a 3-year old, but it gets the job done). So I can, as well as my community in general, support a mass of Spanish-speaking immigrants in a way that other centers in this country cannot. I think formalizing these principles can ease a lot of concerns for Americans. If Urban centers worked with ICE to accept illegal immigrants from other parts of the country, then we probably can solve this issue. Ex: Imagine New York City saying "We'll accept 100,000 illegal immigrants from ICE, to prevent them from being deported". This is 1.1% of NYC's total population, so its a large number but otherwise a drop in the bucket. This sort of thing already happens. San Francisco declares itself to be an "enemy of ICE" and declares itself to be a "sanctuary city". That's fine, the city is allowed to run itself the way it wants. Formalizing the concept would ease over a lot of the Urban vs Rural divide that this country is having. Anyway, San Francisco's leadership is obviously trying to tell immigrants (even illegal ones) to come and live in its city. https://sfmayor.org/sanctuary-city https://sfmayor.org/sanctuary-city The state in which I live in is heavily biased towards "sanctuary city" status. And I think it works for my local culture and local area.