Not committing genocide on the natives, like European immigrants to the area which is now called the United States did, would have been been a nice touch.
1 Like
As I said to @Steven_Naimsith, for every economist you can point to that argues the benefits of illegal immigration, I can point to one that argues the opposite. As Harry Truman once said, I will only hire one armed economists, as they can never say âon the other handâ. Not an argument worth having, as both sides cherry pick the data.
Low prices (and the low wages that accompany them) may be good for consumers, but they are bad for the overall economy. Deflation is the biggest economic problem currently, which is why central bankers worldwide are doing everything possible to combat it.
You started the argument with a post containing no data.
I can see why you now donât want to continue the argument.
1 Like
But they (ISIS) do exist in such a world. There are no borders in Europe, and people are free to move where ever they want, whether legally or illegally. There is no way to distinguish between someone who genuinely wants to move to better themselves and/or their families, and someone who wants to kill as many infidels as they can. Thatâs the point Trump is making, how can you tell the difference if there is no border?
This is big boy stuff Kev.
As a capitalist, I am in an ideal world, in favour of unfettered immigration and indeed trade. The opposite of Donaldâs platform.
However, letâs look at the reality of the world we live in;
- we have different religions and cultures. One religion which is violently opposed to many western freedoms which we hold dear. Should people have to accept those people and the cultural baggage they bring with them? Europe is your most recent example of this and we can look to history to see the problems with mass migration.
- we have different social services, all over the world. Who is entitled to these? Public services donât just stop at social welfare, hospitals, schools ect either before you say immigrants should have to earn tax credits to avail of them. Who pays for translating government documents into the hundreds of languages you could potentially have coming onto your door step?
I could go on with this. Same goes for free trade. A fantastic maths equation which stands up to scrutiny, but doesnât stand up to the reality of peopleâs daily lives. Someone who lives in Indiana isnât going to just retrain overnight when a factory goes to Mexico. Free trade has worked for Trump because American people see what it has done in their daily lives. They see China playing underhanded and ask why should they get away with it?
From a capitalists perspective, the ideal is more free trade and immigration. Drives down costs and improves the talent flow. Also in time we will move away from other potential arbitrage opportunities for vultures like different currencies. Hopefully with oil dependence reducing in the next century as well the west can finally leave the desert rat countries to fight it out amongst themselves.
The best way to achieve these things though is gradually opening up borders with decent like minded countries. The EU is a great idea in this respect but it has moved too quickly and avoided taking some of the drastic steps required to make a single currency work. I still have a bit of faith that we get there but itâs been ebbing away over the past couple of years. Merkelâs Holocaust guilt guiding her to allow millions of aliens from a drastically different culture to ours is lunacy and is crippling the project.
A country should never be forced into these things. The US shouldnât have millions of immigrants it doesnât want - Trump is correct. A country shouldnât have to take people in from alien cultures - Trump is correct. Democracy.
1 Like
Talk about missing the point (concept)
I can provide all the data you want, but itâs a complete waste of time as you will only take seriously the data you agree with. The analysis favoring illegal immigration is from liberal sources, it suits their narrative as it buys votes for Democrats.
The reality is the situation is quite different in different states and regions of the US, which is why such conflicting interpretations are reached. In the more affluent areas, illegal immigration is a net positive, as natives wonât work those jobs anyway for the wages involved. In the rest of the country, it is a problem where illegals are pushing down labor costs and avail much more of services than they pay in taxes. With the slow growth economy we are in, overall it is a negative, as the overall impact is reduced prices which as I said is ultimately bad for the economy.
2 Likes
What concept?
You said people should be allowed to move wherever they want.
The Globalist coalition. Do gooder lefties who try to appeal to the working classes and the very wealthy in society including corporations. Both extremely anti Trump as they he impinges on their bottom line.
The liberal media focus on stuff like the wall and banning Muslims but donât seem to get that Trumpâs success is because he focuses on the negative effects of globalisation on US citizens lives.
Most of the stuff on that page claiming illegal immigration is a drain on the US economy is from very questionable sources, ie. organisations that specifically lobby against illegal immigrants - one of them, the Minuteman Project, is a private militia which attracts white supremacists.
Arizona is a poorer state and has introduced draconian immigration laws - its economy has taken a serious hit as a result.
All this is before you consider the utterly laughable practical implications of Trumpâs plan to deport 11 million people, a number not even the Nazis got close to.
1 Like
Sanders and Jeb surely going by that chart
Youâre a gas man.
In Britain you support a party which has supported every war going and rail against a man who is decidedly non-interventionist in his foreign policy, yet claim to like Trump because of his supposedly ânon-interventionistâ policies (like invading Syria and re-invading Iraq, not to mention his fake opposition for the 2003 Iraq War).
In Britain you support a party which unashamedly pushes the negative effects of globalisation and attacks workers rights at every turn, yet rail against a party leader who has genuinely fought for workers rights all his life. In the US you support a man who talks the talk about globalisation negatively affecting US workers, yet exclusively uses low-wage workers in low-wage countries to produce his clothing line, ie. a man whoâs a fraud.
In Britain you call a man who appears to share many of the policies you claim to espouse in a US context âout of touchâ, yet you think a man who wants to deport 11 million people in the biggest forced migration since World War II, has a proven record of misogyny and incitement to violence, and has been proven to be the biggest liar of any candidate on either side in the campaign is somehow in touch with reality.
One could perhaps form the impression of you that you are somebody who is suffering from serious cognitive dissonance at best, or more likely, that youâre a very confused simpleton who hasnât a bullâs notion what theyâre talking about, and should really step away from the keyboard rather than continue to make a fool of themselves for the next four months.
1 Like
The only oneâs talking about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants are the liberal media. This is from Trumpâs own website, find where it says anything about mass deportation of illegals. The focus, as Trump correctly points out, should be on securing the border and deporting those convicted of serious crimes. They sort of go hand in hand, as without a secure border you have no control over who enters, or leaves for that matter.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
You are talking through your hole on Arizona, again unsurprising. Arizona is experiencing a boom relative to most of the country, growing at close to 3%, while the US average is below 2% (and Europe is 0%).
He said he would deport ALL undocumented immigrants. Which number around 11 million people.
Is the liberal media the same as the lamestream media?
Trump, as well as anyone else and perhaps better than most, knows that deporting 11M people isnât going to happen. Heâs been all over the map on what to do with the illegals who are already here, in other words exactly the same as all other politicians, who have been waffling about the issue for 30 years. I would pay less attention to what he said on the primary campaign trail, and listen to what he is saying now, what he publishes on his website, and what he says in the debates. The biggest problem with Trump is his lack of a detailed plan on anything, its time for him to cut out the waffling and convince people he has a credible plan on immigration, or any other issue for that matter.
I point out Trumpâs foreign policy position as a rebuttal to the morons who think that heâs sort of crazed lunatic who will attack everyone. These are the type of people who used Trump saying that he would never rule out using nuclear weapons on Europe as an example of him being lunny re foreign policy. His policy is bomb the shit out of ISIS with a genuine international coalition. He wants the US to take less of the strain on NATO, which is a fair position, the US has protected the West for far too long. A country like Ireland is a disgrace when it comes to defence. If anything ever happened to Ireland every sick puppy in this country would look to NATO.
The Conservative Party are mixed on globalisation. Yes pro less regulation on businesses, but also split on immigration. Iâm a Ken Clarke Tory personally.
Iâm anti Corbyn because heâs a socialist loon who wants to take Britain back to the 70s.
BUT heâs unelectable so happy enough with him there. Calling out the cowardice of his supporters is a different thing. At least the PLP seem to want to actually govern. The social media warriors for Corbyn know they donât have a chance, but by remaining true to their âprinciplesâ they can hurl from the ditch on every single bad thing that happens in Britain and pat themselves on the back. Itâs a pathetic and weak attitude to politics.
You are busy patting yourself on the back here for ânoticingâ that Trumpâs positions donât coalesce with mine. You clearly donât read this thread or have missed even the last few posts.
Where I pointed out that my overall attitude to immigration is different to his? Where I pointed out that Iâm for free trade? I will recognise though that Trump is brilliantly engaging with an audience there on this issue, an audience left behind by Globalisation. Unlike the myopia of the liberals who just like to scream about the wall and racism when he actually talks in depth on those issues.
What I like about Trump is that he isnât afraid to say the US should actually enforce its laws. That PC has gone mad and that SJWs are wrecking the character of the nation. I like that he has challenged China. I like that he calls out Islam, unlike every other Western leader who has ran from criticising it. I think as a businessman his instincts will ultimately be against a yuuuuge expansion of the state. I think he has a realistic approach promising Medicare to existing citizens, whilst hopefully restricting new government programmes going forward. The expansion of the state in the US since Johnsonâs âWar on Povertyâ has damaged the US. I also do like that heâs his own man (I like that about Bernie & Corbyn too btw). Against Crooked Hillary, heâs a home run.
Yes. The concept of a world without boarders.
Its not that hard to think about, are you fucking special or something?
So what answers do you have to the points I brought up against that?