Border crisis

[TheDrake]

Help me out on this one. There already was a border crisis. It was just on the other side of the border. If someone truly cares about human life, I don't know how that person thinks crowded camps 10 miles on the other side was so much better than having them on this side.

[edgmatt]

If getting to this side gets them permanent entry way into the country, then the problem will grow.  (Incentive, right?)

If they camp on the other side and NOTHING HAPPENS, then the incentive to travel to the border goes down, and then the "problem at the border" becomes less of a problem.

[TheDrake]

If you think the threat of cartels pushing your daughter into prostitution and no hope of a job for your son aren't already sufficient motivation to try and get them out of Honduras, then I think you're confused. Numbers were already rising toward the end of the Trump Presidency while still holding people on the other side of the border and deporting unaccompanied minors.

I agree incentive needs to be reduced. A large foreign aid package might make a dent in it. Biden has proposed $4 billion to Central America toward that end.

[Fenring]

I agree incentive needs to be reduced. A large foreign aid package might make a dent in it. Biden has proposed $4 billion to Central America toward that end.

Seems strange to pay money to bolster a region whose situation has been brought about by design. If the issue is that people don't want to live there, an aid package won't change that.

[edgmatt]

If you think the threat of cartels pushing your daughter into prostitution and no hope of a job for your son aren't already sufficient motivation to try and get them out of Honduras, then I think you're confused.

When did I ever say such a thing?

I didn't answer the question "why are people coming to the border?"

I was responding to your comment about *our* border crisis.  And the answer was:  If we continue to do things for the people who come to the border, then people will continue to come to our border, and we will continue to have a crisis.

I made NO judgment on whether or not we OUGHT to do things for those people, nor did I comment on their own countries conditions.  But incentives exist.  So do disincentives.

I agree incentive needs to be reduced

So first you call me confused for my statement, then you agree with me?   

If the issue is that people don't want to live there, an aid package won't change that.

I agree.

[Wayward Son]

And the answer was:  If we continue to do things for the people who come to the border, then people will continue to come to our border, and we will continue to have a crisis.

What makes you believe that not doing things for people who come to the border will end the crisis?

It's not the perks they get when they first come to this country that is bringing people here; it is the opportunities they will have if they make it into the country.

Those opportunities will continue to exist whether we treat them like human beings at the border or not.  So they will continue to come, regardless.

[cherrypoptart]

Biden policy results: abandoned children crying and begging for help on the border.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/child-abandoned-near-border-seen-013825302.html

Sure it's great to help children especially when they have been abandoned but the problem comes in when you have a guy like Biden encouraging people to do this to children and in their minds it's actually for the sake of the children. Biden has told the third world that the best way to give you children the opportunities of America is to abandon them on our border. People heard him loud and clear and we see the sad results.

[TheDrake]

Biden policy results: abandoned children crying and begging for help on the border.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/child-abandoned-near-border-seen-013825302.html

Sure it's great to help children especially when they have been abandoned but the problem comes in when you have a guy like Biden encouraging people to do this to children and in their minds it's actually for the sake of the children. Biden has told the third world that the best way to give you children the opportunities of America is to abandon them on our border. People heard him loud and clear and we see the sad results.

I'm sure its much more humane to send them back to slavery and violence in their *censored*hole country, or to somehow take all hope away to the point that they never try to leave.

[yossarian22c]

Biden policy results: abandoned children crying and begging for help on the border.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/child-abandoned-near-border-seen-013825302.html

Sure it's great to help children especially when they have been abandoned but the problem comes in when you have a guy like Biden encouraging people to do this to children and in their minds it's actually for the sake of the children. Biden has told the third world that the best way to give you children the opportunities of America is to abandon them on our border. People heard him loud and clear and we see the sad results.

How is Biden encouraging people to abandon their children? By simply having the policy that we will do our best to take care of children abandoned at our border? That's pretty weak encouragement. If conditions are so bad in a country that you would give your 5 year old to a human smuggler to be dropped over a border wall alone then short of policies that would resemble war crimes I'm not sure what we could do to actually keep people from trying this. Unless you just want to send the kids back alone to cartel territory and refugee camps.

[cherrypoptart]

So why not just go and get them? Wouldn't that be more humane? Why encourage them to do things the hard way like this? Just tell them that if they can make it to the American embassy in their country we'll take care of the rest.

[Fenring]

I'm sure its much more humane to send them back to slavery and violence in their *censored*hole country, or to somehow take all hope away to the point that they never try to leave.

Uh, isn't that literally what the law demands? It is in fact *the point* of any kind of restrictive immigration law. You seem to be almost arguing that the administration should ignore U.S. laws because it's humane to do so.

[LetterRip]

So why not just go and get them? Wouldn't that be more humane? Why encourage them to do things the hard way like this? Just tell them that if they can make it to the American embassy in their country we'll take care of the rest.

You realize that Republicans changed the law so that people couldn't apply at embassies because they wanted fewer people to apply for asylum and thought that forcing them to enter the country would reduce applicants.  It is effective in reducing applicants, but a direct result is that you get more people crossing the border for the purpose of asylum seeking.

Also a big part of the reason we have so many asylum seekers is due to US destabalization of these countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/19/central-america-migrants-us-foreign-policy

[LetterRip]

It looks like the Honduras coup during the Obama administration was viewed favorably by Chiquita and Dole, as well as mining and petroleum corporations - since Zelaya had proposed a 60% increase in minimum wage that would have increased the labor costs for banana's and pineapples, he instituted policies unfavorable to open pit mining, etc. and with his removal by coup that wage increase went away.  It also appears that Clinton opposed him being restored to power (likely for that reason).

In the first edition of her memoir, Hard Choices, she admitted working with other Latin American governments to ensure Zelaya would not return to power. The references to her role were removed in later editions.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/19/central-america-migrants-us-foreign-policy

“American mining companies complained they were not being treated as they wanted [since] open pit mining had been prohibited, and petroleum companies could have complained as well, since they were losing their monopoly.”

https://harvardpolitics.com/us-honduran-coup/

https://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/from_arbenz_to_zelaya_chiquita_in

https://www.britannica.com/place/Honduras/Agriculture-forestry-and-fishing

[TheDrake]

I'm sure its much more humane to send them back to slavery and violence in their *censored*hole country, or to somehow take all hope away to the point that they never try to leave.

Uh, isn't that literally what the law demands? It is in fact *the point* of any kind of restrictive immigration law. You seem to be almost arguing that the administration should ignore U.S. laws because it's humane to do so.

US and International law speaks very clearly to asylum and refugee status. It isn't "against the law" to accept and even encourage asylum seekers. Particularly unaccompanied minors.

Why don't we just shoot people crossing the border? That would be a mighty fine deterrent indeed. There's a lot of right wingers out there who consider that a just application of US defense of borders.

But you are right, I would break the law to help keep a kid out of sex slavery to the cartels, or keep someone from starving.

[Fenring]

But you are right, I would break the law to help keep a kid out of sex slavery to the cartels, or keep someone from starving.

We are probably in agreement that the current state of the law isn't very good, regardless of how it's being enforced. I don't agree with you about open borders, but even so I think there are worse accusations one can make than "you are enforcing the law as it was intended." If the intent is a bad one then that really should go through the Congress. The buck has to stop there, not with the President.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/these-are-the-white-house-staffers-working-with-kamala-harris-on-curbing-central-american-migration-152046233.html

"Vice President Kamala Harris has begun to assemble a team to assist her in efforts to stem the migration surge from several Central American countries into the U.S."

Stem the immigration surge?

Why?

Are they racists?

These people are fleeing oppression, poverty, starvation, violence, and are just looking for a better life for their children. So why is Harris trying to stop them from coming here?

[TheDrake]

Because she and Biden aren't the open border caricatures that you and the right wing press make them out to be?

Did you read the actual article?

Harris’s task, according to a member of her team, is to lead diplomatic efforts to “engage Mexico and the Northern Triangle to address the root causes of migration and to oversee the flow and use of U.S. aid,” as opposed to more granular immigration-focused issues surrounding the U.S.-Mexico border.

Zúñiga was critical to the creation of a multibillion-dollar aid package to Northern Triangle nations during the Obama administration and recently told Central American media that the U.S. is likely to push for good governance reforms above any forcible intervention tactic.

In other words, help them at home so they don't have to come here to survive. That's a lot different from stopping migration with the threat of mistreatment. It's helping them a different way.

I'm willing to bet she also won't threaten Mexico for not stopping migration at their southern border.

They might also actually appoint an ambassador to Honduras, which Trump never bothered to fill since June of 2017.

[cherrypoptart]

"Because she and Biden aren't the open border caricatures that you and the right wing press make them out to be?"

So that means they're racists, right? Or do I misunderstand the term?

[yossarian22c]

"Because she and Biden aren't the open border caricatures that you and the right wing press make them out to be?"

So that means they're racists, right? Or do I misunderstand the term?

People called Trump racist because of the language he used to describe people crossing the boarder. Statements like Mexico is sending us their rapist and murderers. Generalizing immigrants* as undesirable as people or as criminals was the offensive part. Wanting a rational orderly immigration system is not racist.

*I know, I know, Trump sometimes qualified that statement after the cheers with something like, some of them may be good people.

[rightleft22]

"Because she and Biden aren't the open border caricatures that you and the right wing press make them out to be?"

So that means they're racists, right? Or do I misunderstand the term?

Yes you are misunderstanding the term. To be fair many if not most on the new right and New left misunderstand the term and use it in a way that makes the move to equality more difficult. IMO

I suspect you are intentionally misunderstanding in order to make a 'whataboutism' point and use that to avoid holding yourself and those in your camp accountable for what could be 'racist positions and or speech. 

[cherrypoptart]

I beg to differ.

Sure there may be a few people who assert that having immigration laws and enforcing them isn't racist but they are conservatives. The official position of the left all during the Trump administration was that enforcing our immigration laws is racist. Unless what's racist and what isn't changes depending on the person doing it, it's still racist. Y'all think anyone forgot how racist the border wall was?

Google doesn't lie.

Just Googling "Trump racist immigration" shows the truth of it. I mean now that Democrats are in charge and their open borders rhetoric encouraging people to come to America illegally has immediately resulted in the entirely predictable man made disaster and a crisis on the border, of course they are going to be forced to do an about face and start discouraging illegal immigration and the abuse of our asylum system, but that doesn't change the fact that according to what they said for the entirety of the four years under President Trump they are acting in a racist manner. Y'all can deny it all you want but the facts are the facts.

The argument that it wasn't what Trump was doing that was racist but only what he said while he was doing it just doesn't fly. When Democrats end up doing the same things, meaning stopping people from illegally entering the country and deporting them after they do, and then they just say while they are doing it that "we're not racist but...", that doesn't make any sense.

Either enforcing immigration law and securing the border wasn't racist when Trump was doing it or it is racist when the Democrats are doing it. It's like saying that it doesn't matter what you do only what you say while you do it. I guess there is some consistency there because that's the same standard the left applies to hate crimes.

[TheDrake]

So there was no difference in policy, and Trump bore the brunt of ill will? Or there is a massive difference in policy that caused migration to surge? You can't really have it both ways, cherry.

[rightleft22]

I guess were talking to different people on the Left then as I don't know any that hold the view that enforcing laws is a racist act. There are those that will ague that some laws can be argued to being 'racist'. Are those enforcing those laws racist? I don't think so, not if that is the only measuring stick, but it does fall into the category of a systemic problem...

Trumps communicated reasonings and tirade for enforcing immigrations laws clouded the issue of what might be labeled racist or not. You can't separate the too. I would argue that clouding the issue was intentional. Instead of focusing on the laws we get to shake our fists importantly and call each other names.

You argue in such 'all or nothing' tribal generalities that its difficult to engage in dialog.

[yossarian22c]

"Because she and Biden aren't the open border caricatures that you and the right wing press make them out to be?"

So that means they're racists, right? Or do I misunderstand the term?

Is your point that some people on the left overuse the term racist? Point conceded.

Can we move on and discuss actual policy. Because the people flooding the border are more likely to be getting their misinformation about open borders from the same sources you are, even if filtered through a few other layers of social media. Its the right that has been crowing about Biden's open borders, Biden has done nothing other than take in abandoned children and stop construction on the wall that doesn't keep out 5 year olds. People showing up at the border expecting to get in weren't getting their information from Biden or the MSM, it was probably quotes by right wing politicians and pundits lamenting Biden's open border policy that triggered their hopes of getting in easily. Because the facts on the ground don't support such ideas.

[TheDrake]

Meanwhile, it should be said, I'm not at all sure it's inappropriate to call Biden a racist legitimately given his many policy stances over his career. His border policies are just as likely to be a political calculation to keep the support of the progressive side of his party as true conviction. That's the other side of evaluating policy versus character. I'm quite sure that's part of why he made a big show of putting Harris in charge of the border, so he can play it any way the wind blows.

[cherrypoptart]

"because the people flooding the border are more likely to be getting their misinformation about open borders from the same sources you are..."

My source is the Democrats' proposal to grant a path of citizenship to dreamers.

That means if you come here illegally particularly if you are young then you get to stay and become a citizen. There is no reason for anyone to believe that the same thing won't happen again in the future for the people who come now as the Democrats want to make happen for the dreamers who came not so long ago and Reagan made happen with the first mass amnesty that was promised to be the last amnesty.

People seem to be getting hung up on the fact that nobody is using the actual words and declaring an official policy of "Open Borders" but the words don't matter when the actions speak for themselves. Amnesty for dreamers is the official declaration of an open borders policy. Everyone has a reasonable expectation that if they can get in and especially if they can stay long enough to establish a good life for themselves and set down roots then they will get to stay. Democrats make exactly that argument constantly. Illegals who have lived here for a long time, have good jobs and families and aren't criminals besides their immigration status should not get deported. People the world over hear that and they are acting on it. That's open borders in deed if not in word.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/some-migrants-now-sending-their-kids-across-border-alone-so-n1261249

"Currently the Biden administration is expelling all new asylum seekers arriving in the U.S., citing Covid precautions — except children who arrive alone."

------------------------------------------------

So one of the big problems with Trump is that he was separating children from their mothers.

So what does Biden do?

He gets the mothers to do the dirty work for him. They separate themselves from their children and send their children to the border by themselves.

Wow. What an improvement.

[yossarian22c]

...
He gets the mothers to do the dirty work for him. They separate themselves from their children and send their children to the border by themselves.

Wow. What an improvement.

At least the people know what they are getting into and we aren't having armed agents ripping crying kids away from their mothers. What is the alternative when kids show up to the border alone? Send them back into cartel country unaccompanied?

I agree the current state of affairs is bad, but I don't see a better alternative. If people really have become desperate enough to send 5 year olds alone to a border crossing then the situation is really bad. What level of humane and legal deterrence will stop that kind of desperation? We could let their parents in with them to request asylum but then you would go crazy decrying open borders and catch and release. Our only long term solution is to work to improve conditions on the ground in Latin America so that a dangerous 1,000 mile walk doesn't seem your only chance for living.

[cherrypoptart]

"Send them back into cartel country unaccompanied?"

If it can be determined what country they are from then they can be handed over to that country's embassy. Then whatever legal processes they have can run their course. Maybe family members back in the country can take care of the child. Maybe the parents if they sent the child out alone like that are prosecuted for child neglect, endangerment, and abandonment.

What's the Golden Rule? What if an American parent sent a young child out on their own to cross into Mexico and the Mexican government found the child? What would we want the Mexican government to do?

At the very least we need to contact the embassy and let them know that we have one of their citizens and ask them what they want us to do. Do we even do that much?

And there have to be some relatively safe areas of some of these countries and there have to be systems there for abandoned children. And if you say no there don't, then what does that mean? Doesn't it mean that these countries could send all of their abandoned children to us, all of the children the parents are encouraged by Biden to abandon because it means a ticket to a better life in America? Instead of a border crisis of 16,000 abandoned children how about a border crisis of 16 million?

[yossarian22c]

"Send them back into cartel country unaccompanied?"

If it can be determined what country they are from then they can be handed over to that country's embassy. Then whatever legal processes they have can run their course. Maybe family members back in the country can take care of the child. Maybe the parents if they sent the child out alone like that are prosecuted for child neglect, endangerment, and abandonment.

So fly them up to DC and drop them off at embassy row?

What's the Golden Rule? What if an American parent sent a young child out on their own to cross into Mexico and the Mexican government found the child? What would we want the Mexican government to do?

At the very least we need to contact the embassy and let them know that we have one of their citizens and ask them what they want us to do. Do we even do that much?

Yes, most of these children are coming up to join family, a parent who already crossed, aunts or uncles. HHS works with the child and origin country governments to make sure the child ends up in a suitable place within the US.

I don't see a humane policy that deters this any more than what we have. Allowing families in to request asylum would end the unaccompanied minor thing. Passing laws to allow and funding enough consulates in the origin countries to allow for asylum requests to be made without a 1,000 mile hike through Mexico would be another solution. But Republicans seem not to want to let in people fleeing cartels and gangs to come work hard in America so their kids have a chance at a decent life.

[yossarian22c]

What's the Golden Rule? What if an American parent sent a young child out on their own to cross into Mexico and the Mexican government found the child? What would we want the Mexican government to do?

Golden rule would be to do their best to take care of the child and reunite them with any family available in Mexico as the parents are clearly not in the child's home country to go back to. Sending them back to an orphanage or to the care of the state in the US is worse than letting them stay with a parent, grandparent, or other family member already in country.

[TheDrake]

What would we do if a parent in California put a kid on a bus to Oregon to live with their uncle? It's just a line on a map. The parent and the other relative decided it was in the child's best interest to live elsewhere.

It would be nice if we facilitated that but then OH NO, ITS CHAIN MIGRATION!

[edgmatt]

Well, if it were just a matter of moving from mexico to relatives in the U.S., I don't think you'd see such a high resistance to it.  It's not like Oregon is subsidizing a house and free education for anyone that moves from Cali to Oregon....and if you move from Oregon to Cali you get nothing.  What a terrible analogy.

It's when the U.S. starts handing things out, that the rest of us schlubs have to either work for or jump through hoops to get: Subsizized housing, essentially free education, free school breakfast and lunch....often times free English lessons...that's when you, of course, are going to get people upset about the immigration.

There is a limit to how much of everything the citizens of this country will just hand over, pay for, or subsidize for someone they have never met, particularly if they have financial burders of their own, for their own families.

Now that sounds harsh, but where does this end?  There are endless stories of schools strapped for cash, towns strapped for cash, unemployment is high, business is not booming....

*No one* wants to be cruel, and most people would do whatever they can to help people in need...but I don't think the citizens of this country are financially responsible for the families of other countries.  The same way the families in other countries aren't financially responsible for me.

--

Ok, so what's the difference in letting them out on the mexico side or the U.S. side?  What happens if they are free in the U.S?  The kids without parents?  The family of 4?  They all have a place to go?  They have a job waiting for them and shelter somewhere?  There are already ~25,000 homeless in Texas.  Won't this just inflate that number?

[TheDrake]

All of those things you just mentioned do not bear on your original question, what should Mexico want the US to do, or conversely as you posed, what should the US want Mexico to do. Implying that there's some kind of welfare issue driving the question.

What should Mexico want the US to do with unaccompanied minors? Ensure that they are safe. Not send them back so that they can try again and face more danger.

And again with your questions of towns strapped for cash, etc. Wealthy communities in the US have railed in the past at having to pay taxes for schools in neighboring poor towns. Do you want to be an island of prosperity and beat away everyone who just wasn't fortunate to be born into the right circumstance?

My answer is, if you are more fortunate then share that good fortune. Where does it end? When everybody on the planet has the same opportunities. That utopia is obviously not achievable. But we should want for every six year old to have the same access to education, food, shelter, and safety. Whether they are south or north of the equator. And when it is just a little more equal and all people have basic needs met, then they won't be saying goodbye to their loved ones and travelling to countries where they'll face hate and hardships.

[LetterRip]

My answer is, if you are more fortunate then share that good fortune. Where does it end? When everybody on the planet has the same opportunities.

From a personal perspective perhaps but certainly not a national perspective.  A nation should first seek to serve the needs of its own population.  If troubled nations people can't afford to care for their own population - I don't think there is any obligation for other nations to do so.  There might be some obligation if the troubled nations circumstances are in part caused by past actions of the other nation but certainly not in general.

I certainly don't think allowing unhindered immigration is something that a nation should allow.

[rightleft22]

My answer is, if you are more fortunate then share that good fortune. Where does it end? When everybody on the planet has the same opportunities.

From a personal perspective perhaps but certainly not a national perspective.  A nation should first seek to serve the needs of its own population.  If troubled nations people can't afford to care for their own population - I don't think there is any obligation for other nations to do so.  There might be some obligation if the troubled nations circumstances are in part caused by past actions of the other nation but certainly not in general.

I certainly don't think allowing unhindered immigration is something that a nation should allow.

I think its more complex as helping other nations populations is often of a greater benefit of the nation doing the helping. The variables are all so interconnected its not possible to be broken down in to a 'either or, all or nothing' type response. (even if our 280 character political discernment/reaction limit wants/needs it to be that way)

[LetterRip]

I think its more complex as helping other nations populations is often of a greater benefit of the nation doing the helping.

Certainly an evaluation can show there is enlightened self interest in the stability and prosperity of particular other nations or a region of multiple nations, but that is quite a bit different from 'we should help the people of other nations' as a general rule, and especially not a basis for unimpeded immigration.

[cherrypoptart]

The big and immediate takeaway though of Biden's border policy is that it provides another perfect example of the cobra effect.

"The cobra effect is the most direct kind of perverse incentive, typically because the incentive unintentionally rewards people for making the issue worse."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#:~:text=The%20cobra%20effect%20is%20the,for%20making%20the%20issue%20worse.

Biden and his crew say that unaccompanied minors are a terrible thing to behold and then his first action is to encourage, and predictably get, thousands more of them at our border. And when confronted with this reality the response is that's the best thing that we can do. If our leaders insist that the best thing that we can do is to make the problem many times worse than it was before then we are in for a world of trouble.

[edgmatt]

And again with your questions of towns strapped for cash, etc. Wealthy communities in the US have railed in the past at having to pay taxes for schools in neighboring poor towns. Do you want to be an island of prosperity and beat away everyone who just wasn't fortunate to be born into the right circumstance?

That's not the scenario, though.  There are parts of the U.S. that are prosperous...but those areas are only paying a small portion of the *cost*.

It's not like the illegals are hoping the border and moving into Piney Point Village.

And it's not like there's just a a handful of people showing up at a time.  We're talking about thousands of poor, (relatively) uneducated people, some of which are children with no family, just appearing in, usually, already middle-to-poorer cities.   And there certainly are rapists and murderers and thieves mixed in the bunch, just like there would be with any group of very poor people.  (Go find twelve thousand very poor whites in the U.S. and tell me not one of them are a rapist or a thief and I'll laugh in your face.)  Poverty creates crime out of necessity.

What kind of impact does that have of the people who live in the towns where the illegals are going to?  Some of those towns are just barely getting by on their own.  Why are those poor people thrown under the bus?  Where is the sympathy for them?

It's such an easy thing to say or type:  "Just let them in, it's the right thing to do".  Well, maybe.  Maybe it exasperates the problem.  Maybe it hurts a whole lot of other people who are also struggling.  You can't keep painting the picture as its just a bunch of well-to-do's greedily hoarding all their land and jobs from these poor immigrants who only want a scrap to survive.  It's much, much, more complex than that (as rightleft mentioned above).

I'm all in favor of the U.S. spending its efforts and resources on developing Mexico, working on positive ways to improve their economy, to get rid of the crime lords and corruption that rapes that country.  I think that would be a more efficient solution than using those resources to throw houses and education at the border crossers after they get here.  We have too many people here, in this country, who are citizens, who could be helped first. 

[TheDrake]

There's a lot we could do, and I said before I don't think the solution is to just let every other country empty out into the US. We could start with true free trade agreements, creating more jobs in those countries. But that fails for the same arguments you made about immigration. OH NO, that might mean some of OUR poor people are worse off!

We could tremendously help our poor, and the world's poor, by getting on board with OECD normative levels of taxation. But OH NO, that is redistribution of wealth! That could hurt our rich people! What will happen to the American that owns a car dealership, he worked for that business!

[yossarian22c]

We could tremendously help our poor, and the world's poor, by getting on board with OECD normative levels of taxation. But OH NO, that is redistribution of wealth! That could hurt our rich people! What will happen to the American that owns a car dealership, he worked for that business!

A wealth tax doesn't have to hit people who own small/medium local businesses. A wealth tax at wealth over 25, 50, or 100 million would raise some revenue and begin to help balancing out the income and wealth inequality that has built up in America. The huge disparity makes our economy and political system weaker.

I'm not concerned with a doctor making 400k per year. Its the CEO making 1 million per year with stock options worth 5 to 10 times that harms our economy.

[edgmatt]

But that fails for the same arguments you made about immigration. OH NO, that might mean some of OUR poor people are worse off!

That's not my argument.  My point was:  We shouldn't be creating incentives for more very poor people to come here by giving them a free house and free education when we already have a lot of people who are citizens here (some of them ex-military who fought for this very country) who we could be giving it too instead.

Also, why the seemingly mocking tone there?  "Our" people being worse off is....what?  Laughable?  Not important?  I don't get what your trying to say there.

But OH NO, that is redistribution of wealth! That could hurt our rich people! What will happen to the American that owns a car dealership, he worked for that business!

Ah, things become a little more clear.  High taxes, even when directed at the very rich, ultimately find there way to the less wealthy in one form or another.  You are right, what does happen to that guy who owns a car dealer?  Does his business close?  Maybe.  Does he lay off workers?  Maybe.  Does he raise the price of his cars?  Maybe.    All of those things effect people of every class, so I don't know why you would say such a thing with such a mocking underlay to it.  You get that the car dealer is a person trying to do exactly what the poor Mexican is trying to do, right?  Earn money to eat and raise a family in relative wealth and happiness.

Your scorn for the working class of this country is a little surprising and a little alarming.

[yossarian22c]

But OH NO, that is redistribution of wealth! That could hurt our rich people! What will happen to the American that owns a car dealership, he worked for that business!

Ah, things become a little more clear.  High taxes, even when directed at the very rich, ultimately find there way to the less wealthy in one form or another. 

And lowering corporate tax rates tends to further concentrate wealth in the hands of the very few. I'll agree the car dealership owner is a poor example, a local business where the owner is probably "rich" compared to the average bloke but not so much richer as to cause society problems. Its the CEO's, hedge fund manager, and other finance guys who have wealth measured in the 10's or 100's of millions we need to start chipping away at. Almost all of the economic gains of the last 40 years have been concentrated in the hands of the ultra rich and that is bad for the nation and the long term health of the economy.

[edgmatt]

Its the CEO's, hedge fund manager, and other finance guys who have wealth measured in the 10's or 100's of millions we need to start chipping away at. Almost all of the economic gains of the last 40 years have been concentrated in the hands of the ultra rich and that is bad for the nation and the long term health of the economy.

"Chipping away at" as if you have a right to go and take that guys money.  I'm not against higher taxes for the very wealthy and lower for the poor, but good god man your mentality about it is horrible.

I don't agree with the second part of that statement, but I don't want to derail this thread into economics discussions.
------

Thousands of people with no money, no education, and nothing to lose swarming into areas of low to middle income is devastating to those areas.  Crime goes up, homelessness goes up and its overall bad.  So as "humane" as it might be to just let these people go wherever they want, I don't see why it should come at a high cost to the citizens who already live there.  Does the government not have an obligation to help its citizens?

[oldbrian]

edgmatt -

Drake's mocking tone was aimed at your fellow travellers.  A lot of people who are against immigration are  ALSO against foreign aid.  And when the argument is made about 'foreign aid helps us in the long run', they say it should be given directly to our own poor.  But they are usually against welfare, as well, so they get mocked for their (false) position.


And if the car dealership owner only makes $200 - 300k profit every year, then they would not be affected by the taxes, would they?
If they are making $2-3M every year, then it looks like they already jacked up the prices on everyone.

[yossarian22c]

Its the CEO's, hedge fund manager, and other finance guys who have wealth measured in the 10's or 100's of millions we need to start chipping away at. Almost all of the economic gains of the last 40 years have been concentrated in the hands of the ultra rich and that is bad for the nation and the long term health of the economy.

"Chipping away at" as if you have a right to go and take that guys money.  I'm not against higher taxes for the very wealthy and lower for the poor, but good god man your mentality about it is horrible.

I don't agree with the second part of that statement, but I don't want to derail this thread into economics discussions.
------

I say chipping away at because I don't want to see our nation devolve into oligarchy or economic collapse. Those are the likely outcomes with unchecked wealth accumulation. I don't hate them. Gates and Buffet may be more productive for the good of society with their foundation than that money being allocated through government channels. But for every Gates and Buffet you have a Koch brothers or Bezos who uses their money to influence policy and politics, often for their own benefit.

Thousands of people with no money, no education, and nothing to lose swarming into areas of low to middle income is devastating to those areas.  Crime goes up, homelessness goes up and its overall bad.  So as "humane" as it might be to just let these people go wherever they want, I don't see why it should come at a high cost to the citizens who already live there.  Does the government not have an obligation to help its citizens?

Yes. But for the most part latin american immigrants aren't living on the streets causing the harms you are attributing to them.

We also have an obligation to help the latin american countries who have been severely harmed by the American war on drugs that has funded and armed massive criminal gangs within their countries. We have to realize the only way we stop the flood of people trying to cross the border is to make sure their counties aren't so impoverished and dangerous that a desperate hike through mexico is the only hope they see going forward.

I don't think we should have open borders. I do think we should process and hear asylum claims based on our own laws in a fair, timely, and humane manner.

[Fenring]

"Chipping away at" as if you have a right to go and take that guys money.  I'm not against higher taxes for the very wealthy and lower for the poor, but good god man your mentality about it is horrible.

It amazes me how so many people are stuck with the idea that the concept of private property automatically implies unlimited accumulation and domination of the game. That does not at all follow from the principle that property rights should be respected. Just the phrase "that guys money" has so many built in premises that it would be difficult to list them, yet you say it as if it's self-evident. What if "his" money was accrued by dumping waste into a river? Is that money "his" or is it ill-gotten gains? How do you even define ownership at the point where the work done cannot possibly be equal to the reward. Take an extreme example: let's say after a few years' work I managed to acquire 50% of the capital in the entire U.S. How I could achieve this doesn't really matter. Do you think that I 'deserve' to own half the country? Did I 'earn' that? Or is the system just set up like Monopoly, such that if you manage to control the flow of capital you're the winner?

The whole issue of ownership and right to earnings is a very complex and difficult one. Reducing it to "but taxes are theft!" trivializes the underlying realities to an unbelievable degree. People may have an innate right to their private things (if you believe in natural law), but there cannot be a principle saying that people have a right to their billions. There is no such right in heaven or earth. The only reason why such measures are not easier to pass isn't moral, but practical: because the wealth will flee. So it's more like a hostage negotiation situation than a moral debate.

[edgmatt]

Illegal is still illegal.  If' he's accrued money by "dumping waste into a river" ( I don't see how a person could make money if *that* was their business) illegally, or stealing it, or doing whatever other illegal things there are to get it, then of course that's a totally different thing than creating a big business and making money.

Why do you imply that the majority of money made in this country is ill-gotten?

It amazes me how so many people are stuck with the idea that the concept of private property automatically implies unlimited accumulation and domination of the game

Who the hell said anything like that?   That sentence doesn't even make sense.  What game?

Private property means: it's mine not anyone else's, and we've made laws to punish people who try to take it by force or cohersion, or a bunch of other things that we consider a "bad".

And we can't make different rules for different people based on how much money they have.  We can't say edgmatt and fenring can't have their property taken by the rich guy....but fenring and edgmatt can go take the rich guys property. 

It's not a zero sum-game: If a guy has 10 million in a savings account, that doesn't mean there is less money for me and you.  We are perfectly free to earn as much as we can.  This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Fenring]

Illegal is still illegal.  If' he's accrued money by "dumping waste into a river" ( I don't see how a person could make money if *that* was their business) illegally, or stealing it, or doing whatever other illegal things there are to get it, then of course that's a totally different thing than creating a big business and making money.

Not really. I bet if you dug really deep into the history of the great U.S. fortunes you'd find time and again that none of the greats (Rockefellers, Morgans, etc) got there by doing an honest days' work and just being successful. That's just not how the game worked; not in railroad, not in oil, not in banking, and certainly not in military or pharma. If you think dumping waste in a river is bad, oh man you'll be in for a surprise if you research what people do to win the game. I would be willing to concede, though, that the odd person like Jeff Bezos may well get there on occasion mostly due to hitting the wave of a new technology. And I'd give Walmart credit for revolutionizing distribution networks. So I'm not making a "rich people are all thieves!" argument.

Why do you imply that the majority of money made in this country is ill-gotten?

At present there is no mechanism in place to 'fix' the results of ill-gotten gain. The odd time an Enron gets punished is the exception, not the rule. Generally the calculations made by giant corporations (for instance auto manufacturers) isn't to avoid doing bad things, but it's a cost assessment of whether the fines if they're caught will equal the gains made by continuing a crooked process. If it will be cheaper to the the bad thing they do it.

Private property means: it's mine not anyone else's, and we've made laws to punish people who try to take it by force or cohersion, or a bunch of other things that we consider a "bad".

Yeah, see this is the problem. It's "mine" now so off-limits. However it became mine doesn't matter, now it's under my fiefdom. Well if you want to address the grammar of your claim, let's take this sentence: "This trillion dollars is mine." In that sentence I do not recognize any intelligible meaning to the word "mine" other than that people with guns will move to keep it working for me. Certainly it cannot possibly carry any connotation of my deserving, merit, natural right, or relative good standing qua human being. At best it's a statement about the nature of who has the most force to bring to bear. At worst it is just an illusory use of language that obfuscates the fact that the system is haywire if one person can possess a trillion dollars.

This isn't really rocket science. I know there is room for disagreement about how the system ought to work. Conservatives tend to argue that government interference is bad because they are incompetent. That's a serious discussion. But non-interference because it's "mine"? I don't think so.

[cherrypoptart]

No masks, no open borders, no problem.

This is what countries look like in a pandemic when they control their borders:

https://news.yahoo.com/australia-no-hurry-open-international-055935366.html

"Australia is in no rush to reopen its international borders, said the country's Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Sunday.

The borders have been closed to all non-citizens and non-residents since March last year.

Australian citizens and permanent residents cannot leave the country due to coronavirus restrictions unless they have an exemption.

Returning Australians from overseas also have to quarantine in hotels for two weeks at their own expense.

"I can assure Australians that I will not be putting at risk the way we are living in this country, which is so different to the rest of the world today. "

----------------------------------------------------------


Imagine if we'd secured our borders early on. I know we can't actually secure our borders. Democrats have made sure of that. I also know we have no interest in securing our borders even if we could. Democrats and many Republicans like Bush have made sure of that too. But Australia and New Zealand show us exactly what we've given up. Hundreds of thousands of dead, millions seriously sickened, and any chance at a normal life.