1. The current immigration laws do not select or favor the people likely to "go for the dream". It instead presents loopholes for those seeking to freeload.

2. In addition, the current cultural climate sanctifies the dysfunctional behaviors that created those third world shitholes, and encourages immigrants to continue in them rather than improving their lot (and that of the host country) with their hard work.

3. There is no G-d given right to "go for the dream" in America, perhaps at the expense of an American worker. These fine people should build up their own countries with their dreams and hard work.

We have a name for leaving a poor country to work for a better life in America. It’s the “American Dream.”

Insider account:

"I'm an IT guy, a developer to be exact. I've been around the H1B issue for about 20 years and things have always gotten worse, never better. Despite Trump's fantastic rhetoric during the campaign, I didn't believe he'd make any real changes or fix anything. However, what I've seen over the past year demonstrates this is definitely not true.

My development team is probably 90 percent indian. The manager of our department is indian and the hiring managers are all indian and they have all stated pretty openly that they prefer hiring indians. Whenever there are layoffs, non-indians get cut. Whenever there is hiring, more indians get brought on board. They get paid about 40k a year less than I do, they work hard and they don't complain. I think they produce garbage quality work for the most part, but I don't think the managers care. It's slowly rotting away the quality of the software but again, they don't care.

Anyway, the typical scenario is that every year, a stack of visas goes in for renewal and about a week later they come back stamped [APPROVED]. Very easy. At the start of this year, instead of coming back approved, each application came back with a huge list of questions and requests for documentation about why the applicants were being paid so little. The lawyers were confused and assembled a huge pile of documentation for each applicant and sent it back. Every single application then came back with either more questions or a denial. EVERY SINGLE ONE is either in limbo or denied (you must go back!). I've heard this from multiple sources, including several who had their visas held up.

As a result of this, our company's HR department has quietly decided (I heard this through the grapevine talking to several department heads) to no longer hire employees that need sponsorship. I've talked with recruiters and with people I know in several other companies in the area and I've heard similar stories everywhere. Pretty much unless you're making 120k a year on a visa, you're going to get yanked. The guys like WIPRO and INFOSYS must be shitting their pants over this.

And salaries for developers are already rising as a result. Salaries have been stagnant for several years but in Q4 2017, they started going up noticeably in this area. Trump is truly making IT great again. "

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7pnc4s/trump_quietly_working_behind_the_scenes_on_h1b/

State Department just issued a Travel Advisory for Haiti:

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/haiti-travel-advisory.html

As usual, Trump had a fair point, but lost it in vulgarity and chaos.

Are we doing immigrants from poor countries any favors by bringing them to an advanced industrial economy to compete for jobs, resources, and social status? Especially if they come from a tribal or clan-oriented society, where contacts and who-you-know are more important than what-you-know?

I used to work for a global freight expeditor and we had issues with our Central American offices. Once you hired one guy to manage the office there, he brought on his relatives, no matter their qualifications or ability to do the job needed. Payrolls exploded with each hire. Once one person in the family gets a job, he's expected to get jobs for every deadbeat cousin in the family.

If you come from a society in which you are not expected to increase your employability through skills development (i.e., trade school, college, apprenticeships, etc.), but instead rely on family connections for a job you are not qualified to do, are you really prepared to compete for a job in an advanced industrialized country?

Likewise, are we doing ourselves any favors by admitting large numbers of unskilled labor when what we need are people who have advanced skills for automating workflows, coding software, and managing large databases?

With a high minimum wage, we are no longer at the point where we can afford to throw labor at a problem in the hopes of solving it. When you pull into a Texaco station, twelve well-trained guys no longer come running out to wipe your windshield, check your oil and tires, and fill your car with gas - even in Oregon or New Jersey.

What we need are folks who can design, build, program, and maintain automated fruit pickers, not more human fruit pickers.

Unfortunately, people from countries like Norway are generally happy there - less violence, socialized healthcare, cultural homogeneity, etc. - and not looking to spend two weeks at sea in a freight container risking death to come here.

We need the population growth and the pressures it exerts on our economy (see Porter, Michael, The Competitive Advantage of Nations). We're not getting that from our birthrate, so immigration is our salvation.

That means, yes Donald, we're going to have to keep admitting people from sh*thole countries. Unless the entire population of Norway suddenly decides it wants to move here.

We can counter many of the problems with admitting large numbers of unskilled laborers with how we assimilate the new arrivals. Unfortunately, the lack of an education infrastructure in the old country cannot be countered with a few welding classes here.

Immigration is not an issue that can be solved with a soundbite - which means today's politicians are not equipped or prepared to solve it.

the current cultural climate sanctifies the dysfunctional behaviors that created those third world shitholes, and encourages immigrants to continue in them

This.

We've gotten away from the "Melting Pot" to "all cultures are equal and deserve respect". If they were all equal, then there would be no shitholes, and no one would be beating a path to such an obviously homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, islamophobic shithole.

Speaking of the term “shit hole”

It has been my experience that you can always tell a civilized country by it’s plumbing.

Hot and cold running water, flush toilets, and waste water treatment plants?

Yep, you've got civilization.

Hole in the floor? Or a squat trench? Yep, you are in a shit hole. 95 percent of the time, there is a dysfunctional governent and economy to match.

It does the American worker no favor to import the world's poor and put them on public assistance or to bid against them in a race to drive wages down to poverty (as FWD.us wants - to destroy middle class jobs).

We absolutely should steal the best and brightest and the entrepreneurial from the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is shrieking because the solution for their own failed regimes is to send their poor to the United States and put them on the back of the American worker. There's a reason Mexico ran that train from its southern border to our southern border - they wanted to make the poor our problem, not theirs, and that's why Vincente Fox is running his mouth again.

We have our own poor. We have our own overcrowded schools and failing hospitals. We cannot demand the American worker be on the hook for the world's poor; we must first take care of our own families, our own communities, and our own people, or we will be unable to take care of anyone.

It is time to protect the wage and dignity of the American worker.

Might want to stop and think about the fact that:

(1) President Trump says he did not make that statement.

(2) The statement comes from "unknown sources." (Often not willing to give their name, but ready to smear the object of their hatred.)

Could people try to verify this allegation before we tar and feather a man who's actions and statements the media has often gleefully twisted or lied about?

I have seen so many comments on this site about not rushing to judgement until allegations are verified. Is that an unnecessary step in the case of an unpopular politician?

" to work for a better life "

For instance, Mexican cartel drug mules, Middle-Eastern sleeper cell terrorists, Salvadoran MS-13 machete-murderers, and human traffickers of all nations come here for THAT noble purpose. You betcha.

" to work for a better life "

For instance, Mexican cartel drug mules, Middle-Eastern sleeper cell terrorists, Salvadoran MS-13 machete-murderers, and human traffickers of all nations come here for THAT noble purpose. You betcha.

Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 12, 2018 9:58 AM

To reliably vote for socialists, before they are citizens and even after they are dead.

Just another democratic party, GOPE plot to disenfranchise us racist red staters permanently. And they use our tax dollars to do it.

The Norway comment was amusing, considering that Norwegians pay a lot in taxes, many of the jobs are public sector, unions are strong there and they get a ridiculous amount of paid "family" leave. Isn't that the real shithole by MAGA standards?

When you go to a medical facility, about the first thing the receptionist wants to know after your name is whether you've recently been to one of those...you know...countries.
Got to be a reason, wouldn't you think?

“Note that the British royal family is still holed up in Britain -- for good reason.”

Bad example. The king and queen of England remained at Buckingham Palce during the Blitz. Many different male members, including the Prince of Wales and younger sons have served on British battleships during wars, and later on as pilots. Not exactly safe jobs.

Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by IRA terrorists,

But I can see how a 21st centruy American tabloid perpective might regard it as the safest of safe jobs in a safe country.

Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by IRA terrorists, ~ Isab at January 12, 2018 2:25 PM

After a distinguished naval career in World Wars I and II. He had a ship torpedoed and later dive-bombed out from under him and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order. In addition, he warned that World War II would start for the US at Pearl Harbor, predicting the Japanese carrier-borne attack on the US Navy base there two months before it happened.

I didn't take that line about the British royal family being about safety Isab but instead about wealth. The rich rarely leave the country where they make all their wealth. For good reason.

Nonstarter.

Conan:

Are we doing immigrants from poor countries any favors by bringing them to an advanced industrial economy to compete for jobs, resources, and social status?

Are we, on the other hand, doing potential immigrants any favors by assuming the role of nanny and deciding for them, "No, you just wouldn't do well in the United States. It would be best for you to find another nation to immigrate to or just stay where you are."

How about we improve the vetting process, find them baseline jobs, such as custodians, acquaint them with the resources and opportunities that are available out there, and let them decide if they want to come to the U.S.?

Are we doing immigrants from poor countries any favors by bringing them to an advanced industrial economy to compete for jobs, resources, and social status?
Are we, on the other hand, doing potential immigrants any favors by assuming the role of nanny and deciding for them, "No, you just wouldn't do well in the United States. It would be best for you to find another nation to immigrate to or just stay where you are."

How about we improve the vetting process, find them baseline jobs, such as custodians, acquaint them with the resources and opportunities that are available out there, and let them decide if they want to come to the U.S.?

Patrick at January 12, 2018 3:49 PM

I think we as a country have no social or moral obligation to take anyone who does not have the potential to earn a good living in this country and contribute to it.
That should include the ability to speak English or a willingness and ability to learn it.

People who come from tribal cultures have difficulty adapting to the values and morals of a constitutional republic.

(Witness the now widespread problem of female genital mutilation).

There are way more people who would love to come to the US than we could possibly take.

The people who should be at the bottom of the list is anyone who would be displacing the low skilled American workers or who is an immediate burden on the healthcare system.

For what few janitorial jobs are left, (soon to be replaced by machines) I would prefer we employ people already here.

You want to live in Japan, never mind about getting citizenship? Prove that you have sufficent wealth to support yourself or a valuable skill, preferably both. And dont be a Muslim. They view it as a pernicious ideology and they dont want Islamic culture getting a foothold in their country.

"I think we as a country have no social or moral obligation to take anyone who does not have the potential to earn a good living in this country and contribute to it. "

Right. We aren't the world's freakin' babysitter. We admit immigrants for our own purposes: because it adds vibrancy to our culture, helps us expand our economy, and it keeps our thought processes from stagnating. Immigrants who don't advance any of those causes, we have no use for, and no obligation to admit them. Nothing in the Constitution grants any rights whatsoever to would-be immigrants.

Of course, part of the problem with the low-skill immigrants is that our stupid minimum-wage laws are eliminating low-skill jobs, and making it more cost effective to replace them with automation. Get rid of the minimum wage, and you don't have that problem anymore. The market will find its own level.

Isab:

I think we as a country have no social or moral obligation to take anyone who does not have the potential to earn a good living in this country and contribute to it.

No one said we had the social or moral obligation.

But do you have a foolproof system of deciding who or who won't make a contribution to society?

And if we accept an immigrant and we find that he's a sponge and doesn't contribute anything to society, how would that make him any different from the millions of native born Americans who are do-nothing sponges?

You can make informed assessments based upon their skills, but can you account for their amount of determination and drive to make something of themselves by availing themselves of the resources and opportunities that are available to all Americans?

"The statement comes from "unknown sources."

That would be Dick "Dirtbag" Durbin, who is widely known among his own party as an untrustworthy low-life. The fact that he was the only Democrat sent to meet with Trump about immigration says that Democrats did not take the meaning seriously, and have probably already decided on their strategy -- which will be "clean DACA bill" with no concessions and no border security provisions, or government shutdown. Scum-sucking assholes.

Cousin Dave, please don't take this as a personal attack, or even disagreement with anything you've said. But I'm picking an undertone of really intense anger coming from your posts.

I hope everything is all right for you.

And for the record, I support the deportation of all illegals who haven't pursued a path to citizenship. You want to come to this country illegally?

Well, not an ideal arrangement, but I do understand that not every country in the world makes a transfer of citizenship to the U.S. a cakewalk.

So, if circumstances force you to take a less than legal path to citizenship, your first step is to do what you can to make your stay here legal. You want to just live here indefinitely without even trying to legitimize your stay in the U.S., or worse, publicly brag about your illegal status in the U.S.? I don't give a rat's ass what happens to you, then. You can be flown back to whatever country you came from.

“And for the record, I support the deportation of all illegals who haven't pursued a path to citizenship. You want to come to this country illegally?”

How exactly do you imagine this would happen? How do you *pursue a path to citizenship as an illegal? *

The mere fact of knowingly entering the US illegally or knowingly staying past your Visa and ignoring a deportation order should bar you from legal immigration.

If you are talking about the dreamers, their permanent residence in this country should come at a high price. In that they should be required to pay for any federal educational, medical or welfare benefits procured on their behalf, and the adult who brought them to this country should be deported and barred from entry, if not prosecuted and jailed for fraud.

If they themselves have been convicted of a felony as older juvenile or adult, they should be automatically deported as well. I dont care what their country of origin or their minority status. This is an area where Im sick and tired or people playing the race card.

If you read any of VDH, you would know, the central valley in California is now unlivable, and illegals are a big part of the reason.

But do you have a foolproof system of deciding who or who won't make a contribution to society?

And if we accept an immigrant and we find that he's a sponge and doesn't contribute anything to society, how would that make him any different from the millions of native born Americans who are do-nothing sponges?

You can make informed assessments based upon their skills, but can you account for their amount of determination and drive to make something of themselves by availing themselves of the resources and opportunities that are available to all Americans?
Patrick at January 12, 2018 4:47 PM

You and I come to this from opposite directions. Since we have no moral or other ethical obligation to take immigrants to begin with, the immigration system doesnt need to be fair to potential immigrants . It merely needs to serve U.S interests, and the interests of U.S citizens.

If you are talking about the dreamers, their permanent residence in this country should come at a high price. In that they should be required to pay for any federal educational, medical or welfare benefits procured on their behalf,

SCOTUS already struck that down with Plyler v. Doe, when the state of Texas attempted to charge tuition for Dreamers enrolled in public school.

Either SCOTUS needs to reverse itself, or you need a Constitutional Amendment.

How exactly do you imagine this would happen? How do you *pursue a path to citizenship as an illegal? *

Apply for political asylum, then pursue while awaiting the decision. And I think there should be a way to allow people who come to the U.S. to pursue a path to citizenship.

You're right. We're coming at this from different angles. It's just that every nation in the world is going to let their citizens pursue immigration to the U.S.

I see nothing wrong with a careful vetting process to give people the opportunity to be at least considered.

“SCOTUS already struck that down with Plyler v. Doe, when the state of Texas attempted to charge tuition for Dreamers enrolled in public school.

Either SCOTUS needs to reverse itself, or you need a Constitutional Amendment.”

That would be incorrect. The Supreme Court decision would not apply to conditions imposed by Congress for former illegal immigrants to gain citizenship.

We have the legal authority to deport them. While we cannot make them pay retroactively for schooling or charge them tuition because we don’t charge anyone, even temporary visa holders for public schooling, we can prosecute their parents for obtaining employment or federal benefits, such as welfare, medicaid, WIC and free school lunches through fraud. Any dreamer who knowingly used fake documents for school loans or employment as an adult, is also guilty of fraud.

Poltical asylum only applies to refugees coming from a war zone designated by Congress. It doesn not apply to economic migrants. Never has.

That would be incorrect. The Supreme Court decision would not apply to conditions imposed by Congress for former illegal immigrants to gain citizenship.

I guess I wasn't clear. It was not about dreamers gaining citizenship. It was referring to your comment, "...they should be required to pay for any federal educational, medical or welfare benefits procured on their behalf,..."

I'm saying that Congress cannot do that. In that decision, SCOTUS declared that even underage children in school cannot be charged tuition in public schools. Barring a SCOTUS reversal, or a Constitutional amendment, you can't require children, even those whose presence in the U.S. is illegal, to pay tuition at public school. They get it free, like all other kids.

SCOTUS already ruled on this, and struck it down.

I'm saying that Congress cannot do that. In that decision, SCOTUS declared that even underage children in school cannot be charged tuition in public schools. Barring a SCOTUS reversal, or a Constitutional amendment, you can't require children, even those whose presence in the U.S. is illegal, to pay tuition at public school. They get it free, like all other kids.

SCOTUS already ruled on this, and struck it down.
Patrick at January 13, 2018 12:52 AM

And I guess I wasnt clear. Paying back federal benefits that were illegally obtained such as Pell Grants, welfare, medicaid WIC and Federal and State tax rebates as a condition of rectifying their illegal status and applying for permenent residency is within the power of Congress with no Constitutional amendment required.

Oh, I see it now. And I'm wondering why I didn't see it the first time. You're not talking about making illegals pay for things like public schools, which was struck down (I feel, in an act of judicial overreach) by Plyler v. Doe.

You're referring to repaying the benefits they gained.

That could be a tall order, if they're doing unskilled, menial labor. Or worse, if they're on welfare already. How do you pay back welfare when you're on welfare? (Rhetorical question.)

Personally, I think Congress should prevent them from getting this money in the first place.

How about we improve the vetting process, find them baseline jobs, such as custodians, acquaint them with the resources and opportunities that are available out there, and let them decide if they want to come to the U.S.? ~ Patrick at January 12, 2018 3:49 PM

So, we should find them jobs and walk them through the benefits of a modern, industrialized society - including rule of law and universal welfare - and then ask them if they want to come to the US. Of course they want to come to the US. That's why we'd be having that conversation.

And you're proposing we do all this hand-holding, who's being a nanny now?

Instead of hiring third world immigrants from tribal cultures as custodians, why don't we just buy some Roombas, and a dog to protect the Roombas from vandals? Hat tip to Warren Bennis

"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment." ~ Warren Bennis

“That could be a tall order, if they're doing unskilled, menial labor. Or worse, if they're on welfare already. How do you pay back welfare when you're on welfare? (Rhetorical question.)”

Bingo. An illegal collecting welfare is committing fraud. A felony. If they can’t pay back the fraudulent benefits, they go home.

Very amusing, Kevin. Thanks!
_______________________________

Conan: As usual, Trump had a fair point, but lost it in vulgarity and chaos.
________________________________

Trouble is, it could easily be a sign of something worse (no news there) when you look at the way he USED to talk, in past decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/opinion/trump-mental-health.html

To the Editor:

"The debate over President Trump’s mental fitness has obscured what should be a more fundamental concern. The emphasis should be on the president’s cognitive functioning, the well-documented and frequently observed overreliance on stock phrases and his paucity of language. Anyone observing older interviews with Mr. Trump will note a dramatic change in language function. Whether or not this is indicative of dementia is impossible to determine, but this concern should be further addressed by an exam that includes a thorough neurological and cognitive assessment.

"Underlying neurological disturbance may result in impulsivity, disinhibition and impaired judgment. Dementia does not spare billionaires, and denial spares no one."

STEVEN S. ROLFE, BRYN MAWR, PA.

The writer is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.
_________________________________________

(The other few letters from that link are knockouts as well. My psychologist friend, who is no Trump voter, has said that, for ethical reasons, he does not plan to read the new book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President," but I suggested he read those letters from Jan. 11, at least.)

And:

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/01/13/577674607/rapists-huts-shitholes-trumps-racist-dog-whistles-arent-new

"The emphasis should be on the president’s cognitive functioning"

Such as not caring that one's actions result in the deaths of citizens (see: Hillary, Benghazi); being unable to walk unassisted (perhaps due to unannounced medical or intoxicant issues (see: Hillary, 2016 campaign); or compulsive lying (see: Hillary, hot sauce, net worth, real estate, coming under fire in the Middle East, claims to relations to famous people such as Sir Edmund Hillary, et al).

Yes, cognitive functioning certainly is an issue now that Hillary lost.

Conan:

And you're proposing we do all this hand-holding, who's being a nanny now?

Ah, I see. So if you wanted to become a subject of England, for instance, and the agents who oversee the transition should do no more than wait out the necessary length of time and leave you to it.

And if they so much as hand you a brochure that might give you a cursory outline of the laws that might be different than what you're used to and the services available to new subjects, you'd snarl at them to stop holding your hand.

The information I suggest we give to those who want to come to the U.S. would fill a one page brochure. And you consider that hand-holding?

That is ridiculous.

The information I suggest we give to those who want to come to the U.S. would fill a one page brochure. And you consider that hand-holding? ~ Patrick at January 13, 2018 5:56 PM

You mean the information you proposed giving to people who already want to come to the US - so we can"let them decide if they want to come to the US?" Um, they've already decided.

They think the US is all streets paved with gold, welfare payments for all, and everybody is rich. They often don't realize the profound cultural shift that coming to the US will entail. That's how so many Muslim immigrants to Western countries get radicalized later.

And even if they did, they're escaping tyranny, secret police, grinding poverty, cultural stagnation - all the things that make so many Third World countries "sh**holes." They're not going to say "no."

But, are we being fair just opening the doors and saying "everybody welcome?" Fair to our taxpayers who will have to support indigent immigrants and fair to the immigrants who lack the skills to compete in an advanced industrialized society? Or would we all be better off if our immigration standards were tightened to give priority to skilled labor?

To some degree, we're going to have to admit the unskilled. We need the population pressure and don't have the birth rate to create it organically (see Porter, Michael, The Competetive Advantage of Nations for more on the population pressure thing). To what degree and in what numbers we admit the unskilled is the question.

The information I suggest we give to those who want to come to the U.S. would fill a one page brochure. And you consider that hand-holding? Patrick at January 13, 2018 5:56 PM

A brochure? You mean in addition to the movies, books, and television shows we export around the world on a regular basis?

Yes, by all means, let's use US taxpayer money to print brochures for semi-literate Third World immigrants. And, just to make sure we maximize the expense, let's print them in all native languages for each country.

A brochure. That is ridiculous.

Look. I fully understand that we have no obligation to take in anyone.

The reality is that we do. And, somewhat disturbingly, even when we try to prohibit immigrants from unstable countries when the government's control is at best dubious, the courts have something to say about this and make problems.

The reality is we do take in immigrants. Another reality is, even if we wanted to change this, doing so will not be an overnight process. We can dance around with all the shoulds you care to.

So, with this in mind, we can spend a few measly bucks to ensure they are happy, productive citizens or at least on the path to becoming so, or we can just let them stumble around making their own way, subsisting on welfare, or worse, possibly running afoul of a law they didn't know about and being supported by taxpayer dollars in the prison.

Now, you might say, "Harrumph! Harrumph! I want no immigrants!"

Fair enough. Now what do you want to do in the meantime as we wait for the months or years it will take to bring this about?

I would suggest you look at cost analysis, because frankly, you're starting to sound like one of those conservatives who gripe and complain about Federal funding for rehab centers.

"Waaah! I don't want my tax dollars paying for drug rehab! It's not my responsibility to take care of drug addicts."

In a perfect world, there would be no druggies. Now, for the reality: we have druggies. You can spend the tax dollars on rehab centers, or you can spend several times that amount keeping them in prison. Take your pick.

The "Electors - don't vote for Trump" plan didn't work; the "he's a racist, misogynist, knuckle-walking Neanderthal" didn't stick, the "colluded with Russia to steal the election" is failing; so, let's try the ol' "He's a racist" shtick again.

Sorry, anti-Trumpers. This one has lies and fake news written all over it. While Amy isn't outright claiming Trump said that; clearly the news media is believing the lying Democrats - again!

Until I see (or hear) a smoking gun, such as a tape of him saying it, I will not believe the Democrats on this. They've cried wolf too many times to be credible any more.

Even if Trump did say it, so what?

Last I checked, Trump still had free speech. The exercise of which doesn't constitute "treason, bribery or other high crime or misdemeanor."

Not that Congress really needs to meet that criteria to impeach, but they should at least try to give a passable reason to impeach.

Now, you might say, "Harrumph! Harrumph! I want no immigrants!" ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 3:28 AM

No, I might not. I would never say such a thing - and have never said such a thing. I'm over here arguing for immigration, even the immigration of unskilled labor (see my earlier mention of upward population pressure).

You're so desperate for an argument with an anti-immigration proponent that you're twisting my words so you can have that argument with me.

My argument is now, and has always been, that our problem with immigration stems from our assimilation of immigrants (which we do a better job of than any country on earth, except perhaps Israel). That's the argument you're trying to steal from me. Our ability to assimilate new immigrants has been stressed by the sheer volume of unskilled immigrants coming in.

This ain't the 19th century when we could dump 'em all in the Five Points and they could work for pittance. Minimum wage and employment laws mean an unskilled immigrant had better be able to provide value higher than his cost to the employer. Many can't, no matter how many brochures you give them.

And that cost includes more than his wages. It includes employment taxes paid by the employer, costs of fair employment reporting, sick time, worker's compensation insurance costs, recruiting and training costs, etc.

We're taking in unskilled labor from tribal cultures and dumping them into a modern industrialized non-tribal culture and wondering why they're foundering. Is this fair to them? To us? That's all I asked - and it's a valid question.

I would suggest you look at cost analysis, because frankly, you're starting to sound like one of those conservatives who gripe and complain about Federal funding for rehab centers. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 3:28 AM

Now, who's leaping to put words in someone's mouth?

By the way, I make my living doing cost analyses, not just looking at them. And, I have already argued the cost effectiveness of rehab over interdiction and imprisonment - and not just from a fiscal cost standpoint, but the standpoint of the erosion of civil liberties through overzealous asset forfeiture laws and police militarization.

Making drugs illegal has driven the price (and cost) up, loosing drug gangs and associated violence on Third World countries and making many of them the lawless sh**holes they are today.

I've also cautioned that the rehab-over-interdiction advocates have intentionally and, deceptively, underestimated the costs of free-roaming junkies on our society. Not every junkie will happily go to rehab without force of law compelling him to go. But many will break into cars and steal packages off porches to fund their habit. Just look at California after Prop 47. Is that cost in your "cost analysis?"

"Waaah! I don't want my tax dollars paying for drug rehab! It's not my responsibility to take care of drug addicts." ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 3:28 AM

While you childishly dismiss such an argument, there is some validity to it.

Now for the reality, Patrick. Someone addicted to illegal drugs broke the law. That he became addicted is sad, but to become an addict, he used illegal drugs - repeatedly since that once-and-hooked meme is pure fantasy.

That someone might not want to pay for someone who broke the law is a perfectly valid feeling, not something to be mocked because you're willing to spend other people's hard-earned money to fund your compassion project.

Imprisonment is as much about punishing the lawbreaker as it is about discouraging the next addict from getting started.

Add the cost of those undiscouraged new addicts in rehab (or avoiding rehab) to your "cost analysis" before you self-righteously preach about how only you are capable of looking at the big picture.

Imprisonment is also about having the force of law to compel an addict to go to rehab. As I mentioned in the earlier paragraph, not every junkie wants to be rehabbed.

Not that Congress really needs to meet that criteria to impeach, but they should at least try to give a passable reason to impeach. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 7:16 AM

Anything less than a "passable" reason to impeach is going to be nothing short of a coup. Likewise any invocation of the 25th Amendment.

No, I might not. I would never say such a thing - and have never said such a thing. I'm over here arguing for immigration, even the immigration of unskilled labor (see my earlier mention of upward population pressure).

No, Conan. That wasn't an attempt to put words in your mouth. It was literally a hypothesis. You might say that, or you might not.

Glad to hear your position on the topic, and it's a fine position to have.

I was pointing out that if that was your solution, we still need something practical in the interim. Because banning all immigrants isn't likely to happen over night, even if that was the goal.

Imprisonment is also about having the force of law to compel an addict to go to rehab.

I think you give the prison system more credit than it deserves when it comes to rehab. The only incentive you have to pursue rehab as a prison inmate is because you don't want to spend the rest of your life bound to a 6'7", 350 pound slob who calls you "Dominique."

Conan:

That someone might not want to pay for someone who broke the law is a perfectly valid feeling, not something to be mocked because you're willing to spend other people's hard-earned money to fund your compassion project.

It's my money, too. Newsflash: I also pay taxes. We could itemize every single thing that the government spends money on, but that pesky reality says that it's not truly our money any more. Taxes you pay belong to the government and the government shall use its property as it sees fit.

There are a lot of things our taxes pay for that I arguably shouldn't have to pay for, but I do. And some of them I don't even mind paying for.

I have no kids, for instance, but my taxes support schools and I'm fine with that. The alternative is to have the upcoming generation emerge as a bunch of illiterate thugs whose career options are limited to holding me at knifepoint for my money.

I don't do drugs, either. Should I have to pay for their rehabilitation? No. But I do, and am glad to do it. (Not that that matters, since the government will pay for it if it chooses, regardless of whether I like it.)

Yes, I am being dismissive of arguments against it, because the reality of it is, I will be paying for it. Either paying for their rehab (and I hold no delusions about their success rate; the state of Florida requires rehab as a penalty for drunk driving, which has an abysmal record of success because 99.9% aren't there pursing sobriety; they're there because the law is forcing them), or paying to keep them in jail.

One way or another, I will be my brother's keeper, whether it's keeping him in rehab, or keeping him in prison. Or some combination of both.

This is why I'm dismissive of such attitudes that are indignant about paying for someone's rehab. I shouldn't, shouldn't, shouldn't have to. But I am. And I don't see any immediate solutions to avoiding this.

And to bring us back to the topic. One way or another, we will be paying for these immigrants. We can either pay to put them on a constructive path, or we can pay for their welfare or pay to keep them in prison. Call it hand-holding. I call it a better investment of our resources.

Maybe you see something I don't, but I can only see that I may as well resign myself to that fact. Do you have any workable solutions?

By the way, I hope to see you participate in Amy's latest blog entry about how Aziz Ansari (whom I'd never even heard of before today) is about to have his life ruined over some poor dear who just couldn't find it within herself to say no and walk out the door.

The last few comments touched on part of the immigration problem that we have today, which is that minimum wage laws make automation competitive against unskilled and semi-skilled labor, which are traditionally the areas that most first-generation immigrants go into. The answer to that problem is to lower the minimum wage. Additionally, minimum wage laws shift job opportunities to illegals specifically, in favor of both natives and legal immigrants. Since illegals are illegal in the first place, they can be paid less than minimum wage.

As for drug rehab: I'm in favor of what works. Which drug rehab methods work? The ones that don't, I don't want to pay for them. Unfortunately, for most of my adult life, American government has generally preferred what doesn't work in favor of what does. What doesn't work always seems to have backing from the powerful, while what does work has nothing but its record to speak for it.

I think you give the prison system more credit than it deserves when it comes to rehab. The only incentive you have to pursue rehab as a prison inmate is because you don't want to spend the rest of your life bound to a 6'7", 350 pound slob who calls you "Dominique." ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 8:34 AM

Actually, I took my argument there directly from a California prosecutor in the wake of Prop 47, which decriminalized possession fo small amounts and de-felonized "nuisance" crimes of the type most often committed by junkies to fund their habits.

She said before Prop 47, she could use the threat of prison for the "nuisance" crime to compel a junkie to go to rehab, but after 47, the jail sentence, if any, was too small and the junkie simply opted for a few days in county lock-up over a month in rehab.

Prop 47 took away her leverage; as would blanket legalization.

Either paying for their rehab (and I hold no delusions about their success rate; the state of Florida requires rehab as a penalty for drunk driving, which has an abysmal record of success because 99.9% aren't there pursing sobriety; they're there because the law is forcing them), or paying to keep them in jail. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 8:34 AM

Even the aforementioned prosecutor admitted that forced rehab was not a panacea or cure-all; that many would opt for rehab only as a way out of going to prison. However, she argued, forced rehab still meant getting someone clean for a while and getting them some therapy; and, once clean, they would have a chance to soberly examine their life choices. Strung out, they rarely would.

One way or another, we will be paying for these immigrants. We can either pay to put them on a constructive path, or we can pay for their welfare or pay to keep them in prison. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 8:34 AM

The unskilled immigrant is not going to prison by default. He may end up on welfare or some sort of assistance (for him or for his family).

And as for putting them on a constructive path, how do you overcome a non-existent education infrastructure in the old country? How do you overcome a tribal mentality that says Cousin George just got a job at the factory and it's his obligation to get me one, too, so I don't need to study a trade or learn to read.

Right now, chain migration (yes, Dick Durbin, that's what it's called) means if you have a family member already legally here, you can apply for compassionate admission to reunite your family; in other words, tribalism - Cousin George will get you in. No one asks if you have skills to enable you to be employable here, you're in.

But the society we've created is not tribalist, it's individualist. And that's a difficult cultural shift for some to handle. Read Tamim Ansary's Destiny Disrupted (or, perhaps, West of Kabul, East of New York) for a really interesting discussion of the differences in tribalist and individualist culture that Ansary encountered when he moved from Afghanistan to the US at sixteen; and how tribalist cultures look with horror upon individualist cultures where abandoning one's family and moving across the country for a job is considered an adventure and not a travesty, where old people are put in senior citizen's centers or left to live on their own and not happily taken in by family, where one family member lords his success over the others instead of sharing the bounty with them.

Ansary was an upper class Afghan, educated in English, and had met many Europeans before his emigration. In addition, his mother was American, so his transition was guided. Not so for an semi-literate goatherd or peasant.

My argument is that if you limit the number of the unskilled immigrants admitted by giving priority to the skilled immigrants, you avoid having large numbers of unskilled immigrants on public assistance or turning to crime to support themselves. In other words, it's not a Hobson's choice of admitting them and only then having the option of supporting them or imprisoning them.

A couple of minor points to add: skilled over there does not equal skilled over here.
I know two men, one from Albania and another from Cuba, who were both physicians in their respective countries. They're not physicians here, with our differing standards. And while they're both working, they were both making greater contributions in their respective lands. If there is a way to put them on a fast track to bring them up to speed with the qualifying criteria to call yourself a doctor in the U.S., then neither one of them have availed themselves of it.

Which leads me to believe that there isn't one.

Still there must be some appeal to being an American that they didn't have as a Cuban or Albanian, and it must be significant for them to take such a serious step down in their careers.
Also, yes, taking in only skilled immigrants certainly makes sense. But I don't want to exclude the (admittedly hypothetical) unskilled person who is determined to make something of himself in the U.S.

There's got to be some people out there who buy into our narrative as the land of opportunity, who might not have significant skills to offer but will apply themselves once given the chance and have the drive to succeed.

Which is where the brochure comes in. I don't see anything wrong with soon-to-become naturalized citizens with a quick reference of resources that are available to all Americans regarding educational opportunities and funding to put them on a constructive path to becoming productive citizens.

To pick up from what you posted in the Ansari thread:

I know two men, one from Albania and another from Cuba, who were both physicians in their respective countries. They're not physicians here, with our differing standards.

No, but they're still educated and skilled. So, they add to the collective skill set. Even if they can't be licensed doctors here, they can work. They're not illiterate or uneducated.

If there is a way to put them on a fast track to bring them up to speed with the qualifying criteria to call yourself a doctor in the U.S., then neither one of them have availed themselves of it.

Which leads me to believe that there isn't one.

~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 10:48 AM

I don't believe there is such a way to expedite becoming an MD here. We generally do not automatically accept physician certifications from foreign countries.

From what I understand, Cuban doctors are essentially PAs here. Communist countries were not noted for having great healthcare for the masses - just for the rich elites.

Still there must be some appeal to being an American that they didn't have as a Cuban or Albanian, and it must be significant for them to take such a serious step down in their careers. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 10:48 AM

Yes, which is why you're really not going to have anyone pass on migrating here, even if you explain to them they possess no useful skills to be employed here. Getting here is the objective, not being employed here.

Also, yes, taking in only skilled immigrants certainly makes sense. But I don't want to exclude the (admittedly hypothetical) unskilled person who is determined to make something of himself in the U.S. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 10:48 AM

How do you identify that person and separate him from the huddled masses?

There's got to be some people out there who buy into our narrative as the land of opportunity, who might not have significant skills to offer but will apply themselves once given the chance and have the drive to succeed. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 10:48 AM

Most likely. Again, how do you separate that person yearning to breath free from the huddle masses?

Perhaps, you give priority to skilled immigrants and the ones with the drive to succeed here get some skills there that put them closer to the head of the line.

And let's not confuse peasant hardiness with a drive to succeed. Yes, many immigrants survived a brutal trip to the US, in many cases one that would have killed the average American. That doesn't mean the next Bill Gates or Elon Musk is paddling on a makeshift raft from Cuba or huddled in a freight container from China or crawling through a tunnel from Mexico right now.

During the Korean War, the Chinese soldiers were ill-equipped, ill-armed, and poorly-led at the NCO level. However, as one lieutenant warned his US Marines, don't underestimate them. They were peasants, veterans of countless hardships. The PLA soldier was experienced, as the PLA had been fighting constantly since the '30s. The average Chinese peasant soldier could withstand hardships even the Marines would balk at. With no winter coat, a pocket full of rice balls, a World War I bolt-action rifle, and a handful of bullets, the Chinese soldier was nonetheless a hardy enemy. And the PLA had lots of them. 90,000 PLA soldiers attacked 10,000 Marines and soldiers at Chosin, using snipers and human wave attacks in the coldest winter in Korean history. If a retreat can be called a victory, the Marines won, but it was a close-run thing.

Which is where the brochure comes in. I don't see anything wrong with soon-to-become naturalized citizens with a quick reference of resources that are available to all Americans regarding educational opportunities and funding to put them on a constructive path to becoming productive citizens. ~ Patrick at January 14, 2018 10:48 AM

We don't just certify people and dump them out of a van in Times Square. There is a process, one that includes acquainting them with US society and customs.

Thought from Myron Magnet on immigration from sh**hole countries:

So when Trump crudely calls certain countries “shitholes,” he is speaking truth, not racism. “They are not shitholes because of the color of the populace but because of bad ideas, corrupt governance, false religion, and broken culture,” [Andrew] Klavan notes. After all, there is better and worse in everything. There are such things as progress and enlightenment, fitful and unstable as these may be. There is even such a thing as American exceptionalism. So while Klavan is right to say that many “rank-and-file immigrants from such ruined venues ultimately make good Americans,” it’s worth pointing out that not all of them do, because oppressive government, violence-prone or fatalistically passive religion, and cultures that spurn assimilation or education can deform the soul.