here's the less Teen Voguish version https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moron-idiot-imbecile-offensive-history
Grow wages... I suggested wages. I did not say less people was a solution for their overall economy. They are in trouble because of a shifting global economy and it is not simply about population. Keep calling me names... shows who lost this debate. More people does not equate to fixing the economy. Nor is it even close to being the only factor keeping them from growing. Your ego is in your way.
I think you are trolling right now. I have never advocated that they should be able to skip the immigration line. I have mentioned that is difficult to get granted Asylum. It was my guess that most would not qualify. But you are right, that I don't care if they apply. That is their right to apply and it is following the law. The folks in the caravan are not all the poor people in the world. I'm not suggesting the United States could support all of the poor people in the world. You are arguing against things I'm not suggesting. Here's my stance once again. 1. If they qualify for asylum they get to live in the United States. I'm glad that we could help. 2. If they don't qualify for asylum they don't get to stay in the United States. It isn't really difficult. For some reason, you and others want to make a big deal out of it.
You stand as you stated is very reasonable, the problem I have with a current standing is, first they don’t apply for asylum in the first in determine safe country and second, which is our fault, the law has to be change for asylum seeker to be on US soils in order to apply for asylum. This has to change, to us consulate but if that is the case I am sure we will see an overwhelm applications from all over the world and that might be the reason they don’t do it that way The other thing that I have a problem with is, you seem to be ok with having people just come to the US and try their luck at the asylum process knowing they are not qualify, which I don’t think will be good in the long run. As of right now, there is no harm as you said to apply for asylum and if you don’t get it you are already in the US and could have easily disappeared. If this Law about a person has to be on a US soil inorder to apply for asylum is not going to change then the automatic citizenship at birth need to be repeal. There is also a question on how to support all of this asylum seeker and the cost of sending them home. which no doubt will be a drain for the government as more and more see it as a ticket to get in to the US.
You suggest getting rid of people would help to grow wages, what you didn't mention is that it doesn't work as it's inflationary. Wage growth is the RESULT of a booming economy with taxes high enough that corporations pass the wealth onto employees as an investment into their businesses. Low wage growth is the result of companies maximizing profits so they can get the best dividend to shareholders. That used to be a no-no that would tank the stock, not anymore since the capital gain tax is so low They are in trouble because their homogenous population is on the decline - which means their market is shrinking and consumer buying power - the number one engine of growth is declining. You say increase wages is the solution - but doing it the wrong way is foolhardy.
The law doesn't say they have to apply in the closest place. They can choose where to apply. Unless you have reviewed all of the individual cases of everyone in the caravan you are just guessing that they don't qualify. Your guess has zero meaning in the case. It doesn't drain from the government as much as needlessly sending the troops down to the border. It doesn't drain from the government any more than Trump's trips to his golf courses. One difference is that it is a better expenditure.
Applying outside of the US is already covered under the refugee program. If you open up application for asylum outside of the US, you are opening up a can of worm you would regret. There would be many more applications and you would have to spend more resources to process them. "knowing they are not qualify" - how would anyone know this without knowing each individual claims? This is up to the inspection officer, asylum officer, or the immigration judge on a per case basis. But if you want to educate the general population (the group), send the message out to the group of what qualifies and those that think they have no chance may not try. There are things you can do about "easily disappear". Put tracker on everyone that crosses over and is allowed to have a court date. Fail to show up without reasonable reason, you would be deported and would not be allowed back in (for some X years -- typically, that's 5 years for misinformation today). That is certainly much cheaper than what this admin is doing today - detaining people for months, feeding and housing them at the US gov expense at a cost of ~$200 per day per person. Cost of sending them home is an issue, but how much are we talking about here? The US just spent $210M sending the military to the border. Waste of money. If it cost $2k to send each person home once their application isn't approved, that would have covered 100k people (15x the size of this caravan) . Why not spend resources on additional border agents, immigration officers and immigration judges to quickly process claims - get it down to weeks or less instead of months. Automatic birth citizenship is extremely unlikely going to change given it requires a constitutional change. Your better bet is work on sensible improvement to our asylum system.
I did not say that wages would up and fix things like you are suggesting. Also now wages growing is inflationary? Not necessarily. Nice try with that leap over logic. You seem to be the one rambling. If you dig your heels in anymore, you are liable to get stuck in that pile of BS you are standing in.
You can't put a thoughtful rebuttal which demonstrates you are way in over your head and clearly losing this argument. I suggest you run away with your tail between your legs versus make a full of yourself like you are now. If you increase wages by shortening the labor market it is of course inflationary. Do you not understand that?
I agree. Japan has a declining population while Nigeria has a growing population. Yet Japan is a far more advanced country. Poland and Hungary have declining population level yet they have growing economies. The association between population growth and income growth is poorly represented here in CF.
