4 ms·

I wish someone would force the US to confront the human trafficking nightmare that the southern border has become. Years ago (15?) I looked into this and the

I wish someone would force the US to confront the human trafficking nightmare that the southern border has become. Years ago (15?) I looked into this and the numbers were between 20K and 40K people per year. This data is available from multiple reputable national and international organizations. This isn’t ideological, the size of the problem and the misery it creates are matters of verifiable facts anyone can dig up. Today the problem is massively worse. 100K/year? 200K? Nobody knows with certainty because our government, for some unspeakable reason, seems to think the human misery is worth the political gains. Anyone who is willing to do some honest digging can get a good picture if the tragedy that has unfolded.

davidw 3y ago
The easiest way to take business away from nasty, abusive, expensive traffickers is to make immigration cheap, easy and legal, rather than...whatever this is: https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1668576125809745922 https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1668576125809745922
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  But how are we to maintain an exploitable underclass without a Kafkaesque system of ambiguous and often contradictory rules? It's hard to keep the plebs in line without an underclass to which all sin can be ascribed by default.
anigbrowl 3y ago
our government, for some unspeakable reason Basically the Republican party (specifically, the House GOP caucus led by Newt Gingrich) created the current system in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), because the right wing of their base was mad about the immigration amnesty that took place during the Reagan administration (a compromise with Congress). They've refused to countenance any sort of compromise since then, insisting on a total border shutdown. The Democratic party is nominally opposed to this, but its reform proposals have been limited to tinkering around the edges (eg DACA) because when you get down to it, they're terrified of the far right and less aggressive about pursuing their legislative goals. They like to say they're for comprehensive immigration reform, but I'm not aware of any bills they've introduced that spell out specific policies, again because they're terrified of being attacked by the far right.
- robomartin 3y ago
  I think you are oversimplifying what is a complex multivariate problem. Ascribing culpability to one or the other party, in my opinion, doesn't quite get it. Americans, if I am to generalize, are pretty ignorant of the world. As an immigrant this much is brutally evident. Even though I have now lived in the US for most of my life, I can't say that I truly get how Americans (born, not naturalized) think of immigration. Anywhere else in the world --anywhere-- immigration laws are clear as well as strict. This makes sense. You have to have beneficial metrics to the influx. What does this mean? Well, if you are not creating any new jobs that match the skill set of those coming in, you are importing a problem. On the other hand, it is perfectly sensible to be selective and develop entry requirements that align well with internal needs. In lots of countries they have point systems to qualify individuals and families for immigration. This has nothing whatsoever to do with not being sensitive to the plight of the less fortunate in various parts of the world. It is a simple fact that you cannot take in millions of people without serious consequences if you are not ready for that influx. For some incomprehensible reason the US has, over the last few years, let in over six million people without much in the way of controls. This, by definition, means, at a minimum, six million unemployed. We are not creating an extra 100K+ jobs per month. This is particularly true of the kinds of jobs these people are likely to qualify for. What does that mean? Well, at a minimum, any job they land will be taken from someone else. This is what's called a "displacement market"; when you have limited resources, a resource unit taken is a resource unit not available to someone else. This isn't hard to understand. The other, decidedly ugly, problem, is that millions of people will be exploited in jobs where they will be paid below legal levels. If they are lucky the exploitation ends there. Sometimes I get the sense that Americans (born, not naturalized) without world and multicultural experience have this idealized sense of immigration through uncontrolled means. First of all, most people crossing the border illegally are not refugees. Not to go too far, I'm in Mexico as I type this. Wonderful country, despite what US news sources sometimes portray. We are staying at a pretty high end resort. Not cheap. We met this Mexican family who are also staying here. They live in the US. The entire reason for them living in the US is to build a pretty nice house here in Mexico and then move back. I was talking to another guy who was saving money to buy a fleet of trucks and move back to Mexico to start and run a transportation company. Last week, I was talking to a guy who is going to paint our house. Coincidentally, he is also Mexican. Same thing, he said he flies to Mexico two or three times a year to look after the construction of three homes. One is for him and his family to move into and the other two for rental income. You can live well in Mexico with $1000 USD per month. The $15/hr minimum wage in the US is a goldmine in this context. Get a bunch of people to share living quarters for a few years and you can save-up (or send) enough money to Mexico to live well. I am not implying that everyone coming to the US operates this way. That would not be accurate. However, you would be surprised how much of an ATM machine the US is for the world. Sometimes taking things to ridiculous limits helps understand issues more clearly. We understand zero immigration isn't a good idea. I believe the annual US legal immigration quota is in the order of 1.5 million. Not bad. I would want to understand how people are qualified. I think we need a points system and a process of acceptance that is in sync with our needs. You allocate an additional quota for people who might not qualify through this program. That's fine. Pushing the limits, if we let in 50 million people --they would absolutely come if we had even less controls-- it would be mayhem. The US has lost most of its industrial base to China. This means we don't really create jobs. Our industrial/manufacturing base isn't expanding at a sufficient rate to justify such influx. Plainly speaking: Immigration has to be goals-based, limited and controlled. What we have today isn't ANY of those. This isn't good for the US. I have the ugly feeling most Americans don't understand this.

davidw 3y ago

The easiest way to take business away from nasty, abusive, expensive traffickers is to make immigration cheap, easy and legal, rather than...whatever this is: https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1668576125809745922 https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1668576125809745922

anigbrowl 3y ago
But how are we to maintain an exploitable underclass without a Kafkaesque system of ambiguous and often contradictory rules? It's hard to keep the plebs in line without an underclass to which all sin can be ascribed by default.

anigbrowl 3y ago

our government, for some unspeakable reason Basically the Republican party (specifically, the House GOP caucus led by Newt Gingrich) created the current system in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), because the right wing of their base was mad about the immigration amnesty that took place during the Reagan administration (a compromise with Congress). They've refused to countenance any sort of compromise since then, insisting on a total border shutdown. The Democratic party is nominally opposed to this, but its reform proposals have been limited to tinkering around the edges (eg DACA) because when you get down to it, they're terrified of the far right and less aggressive about pursuing their legislative goals. They like to say they're for comprehensive immigration reform, but I'm not aware of any bills they've introduced that spell out specific policies, again because they're terrified of being attacked by the far right.

robomartin 3y ago
I think you are oversimplifying what is a complex multivariate problem. Ascribing culpability to one or the other party, in my opinion, doesn't quite get it. Americans, if I am to generalize, are pretty ignorant of the world. As an immigrant this much is brutally evident. Even though I have now lived in the US for most of my life, I can't say that I truly get how Americans (born, not naturalized) think of immigration. Anywhere else in the world --anywhere-- immigration laws are clear as well as strict. This makes sense. You have to have beneficial metrics to the influx. What does this mean? Well, if you are not creating any new jobs that match the skill set of those coming in, you are importing a problem. On the other hand, it is perfectly sensible to be selective and develop entry requirements that align well with internal needs. In lots of countries they have point systems to qualify individuals and families for immigration. This has nothing whatsoever to do with not being sensitive to the plight of the less fortunate in various parts of the world. It is a simple fact that you cannot take in millions of people without serious consequences if you are not ready for that influx. For some incomprehensible reason the US has, over the last few years, let in over six million people without much in the way of controls. This, by definition, means, at a minimum, six million unemployed. We are not creating an extra 100K+ jobs per month. This is particularly true of the kinds of jobs these people are likely to qualify for. What does that mean? Well, at a minimum, any job they land will be taken from someone else. This is what's called a "displacement market"; when you have limited resources, a resource unit taken is a resource unit not available to someone else. This isn't hard to understand. The other, decidedly ugly, problem, is that millions of people will be exploited in jobs where they will be paid below legal levels. If they are lucky the exploitation ends there. Sometimes I get the sense that Americans (born, not naturalized) without world and multicultural experience have this idealized sense of immigration through uncontrolled means. First of all, most people crossing the border illegally are not refugees. Not to go too far, I'm in Mexico as I type this. Wonderful country, despite what US news sources sometimes portray. We are staying at a pretty high end resort. Not cheap. We met this Mexican family who are also staying here. They live in the US. The entire reason for them living in the US is to build a pretty nice house here in Mexico and then move back. I was talking to another guy who was saving money to buy a fleet of trucks and move back to Mexico to start and run a transportation company. Last week, I was talking to a guy who is going to paint our house. Coincidentally, he is also Mexican. Same thing, he said he flies to Mexico two or three times a year to look after the construction of three homes. One is for him and his family to move into and the other two for rental income. You can live well in Mexico with $1000 USD per month. The $15/hr minimum wage in the US is a goldmine in this context. Get a bunch of people to share living quarters for a few years and you can save-up (or send) enough money to Mexico to live well. I am not implying that everyone coming to the US operates this way. That would not be accurate. However, you would be surprised how much of an ATM machine the US is for the world. Sometimes taking things to ridiculous limits helps understand issues more clearly. We understand zero immigration isn't a good idea. I believe the annual US legal immigration quota is in the order of 1.5 million. Not bad. I would want to understand how people are qualified. I think we need a points system and a process of acceptance that is in sync with our needs. You allocate an additional quota for people who might not qualify through this program. That's fine. Pushing the limits, if we let in 50 million people --they would absolutely come if we had even less controls-- it would be mayhem. The US has lost most of its industrial base to China. This means we don't really create jobs. Our industrial/manufacturing base isn't expanding at a sufficient rate to justify such influx. Plainly speaking: Immigration has to be goals-based, limited and controlled. What we have today isn't ANY of those. This isn't good for the US. I have the ugly feeling most Americans don't understand this.