[Not a Dodge] Caravan

Not even aware people were being gassed at the port of entry. I was talking about the scenes where most of the pictures and video were coming from.

After they were prevented from entering the port of entry, some of the migrants "attempted to breach legacy fence infrastructure along the border and sought to harm CBP personnel by throwing projectiles at them," Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/25/us/san-ysidro-port-of-entry-closed/index.html

Several hundred managed to climb over the first barrier, according to AFP news agency. It was as they tried to cross a second, spike-topped wall that officials on the US side began firing tear gas.

Chief Patrol Agent Rodney Scott told CNN on Monday: "There were sections that had dilapidated border wall that was made out of scrap metal the military gave us.

"The group breached a couple of sections of that, actually tore down one small section."

Another link shows the 3 places where the attempts were made to cross. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/26/us/migrant-border-crossing-map.html I think one of them may have been the actual (car) port of entry you are talking about, but tear gas wasn’t used there. It was at the actual fences along the border, which sound far from impenetrable.

Isn’t the main purpose of tear gas to prevent direct confrontations? There was a fence along the border that a group was trying to rush and get through. Tear gas was used to stop the crowd from trying to breach the fence, and it was successful. There is a clear video of a fairly large group trying to get through the fence, and then running back away from the fence when the tear gas starts. I believe It prevented a potential uglier scene from occurring if there was a bunch of people that did manage to get through.

Is your contention that the border patrol should have foregone the tear gas and just let them continue trying to breach the fence and deal with it after they got through? Or maybe you have some links showing that the fences at those locations as being impenetrable?

 

You pointed out some key issues. Exactly the kind of reasons we don't let them in without going through a proper legal procedure.

On a side note, you can't go country shopping if you are actually fleeing a bad situation.They will have to go home or accept the asylum Mexico already offered them.

We can't be expected to clean up the mess left by failed states. It is not fair to the people living in the U.S.

 

If you only knew history.

 

I do know history and I know where you are going with this. Doesn't matter. Times change. You probably subscribe to the give me your tired and huddled masses argument that gets overused by anti-border activists and people who last studied history in grade school. Or the America is a land of immigrants BS. The USA is not an open land for the taking, despite the mythology that claims it is a big free forall for the poor. The number of land acerage, jobs, resources, homes, and opportunities are limited. We aren't an open buffet for everyone. And we certainly aren't struggling to increase our population and also fill up vast new land holdings at this point in time, unlike in the past. Furthermore, most people in America were born here and we are no longer simply a land of immigrants. It is a land of Americans and there are patriotic reasons to defend our borders as well. We have formed a dominant culture and it is a pretty good one. A damn good one worth preseving in my opinion. One that formed a place millions of people are eager to live in. So eager they'd risk life and limb. We also have to let people in who won't burden the already heavily taxed citizenry. Sorry if you disagree, but it doesn't benefit me or you as an American.

There is also an example to be made here. If we let in a mass of people, more will come. We have to handle this properly and not let people in or else immigration numbers will be unsustainable. This will lead to a number of problems for our nation's most vulnerable. They will face rising diseases, poverty, housing shortgages, more competition for jobs, and less education and healthcare access. The middle class won't feel these effects, but the working class will suffer.

 

Your claims are simply not substantiated. In fact the opposite has been shown to be true. Capitalism depends on immigration, and immigration of cheap labor - that's what this country was built on throughout its history.

There isn't a shortage of jobs, there's a shortage of labor. Americans don't want to be dishwashers, lawn mowers, roofers and other jobs such as those. You should talk to people who work in these industries. I know many small businesses that would be out of business if it wasn't for the people you paint as a scourge on society and a drain on the system (which is again simply untrue).

What is true is that countries that have strict immigration policies and don't let cheap labor in easily are the ones whose economies are in decline.

 

That's a fairy tale they tell you to help you sleep at night.

No it isn't, a lot of countries used immigration to fill the gap in demand in labor, but there's no necessity for that demand to be filled by immigration (japan didn't use immigration post ww2 for example, much like china today, it shifted in rural pools of labor), it was an optimal situation for a time and place that no longer exists, not a universal constant, but more to the point, in the current environment, there isn't actually a demand in low skilled labor to fill whilst jobs for those people are offloaded to machines or overseas. The impact of downward pressure on low skilled labor in the developed world is a universally accepted concept that matches all available evidence (the elephant graph is a good illustration), and then if there became a scenario where low skilled labor was needed, like the country began re-industrializing as is the purpose of right wing populism, then immigration policies could be changed to reflect that new outcome without a glut to depress wages, as that's the job of the government.

What do you think happens in nations where they don't have an import of cheap labor? They either pay much higher prices, do it themselves or have a machine do it, lawn mowing in some countries can get people paid the equivalent of US$20 an hour, which is how you get people to do jobs "they don't want to do" and that's a job people can do for themselves, in some of those cases, they can't even substitute themselves such as roofing, and just have to pay for it.

Sure this is a moral preference no doubt, I'd rather a nation where citizens are paid, even at a premium as opposed to me being able to get it at a few dollars an hour from a massive glut of cheap labor, but your mileage may vary, but to suggest that there isn't an alternative is nonsense.

This is simply an application of a straw man, it amounts to a claim that someone can't compete with other businesses who are using cheap imported labor without also employing their own cheap imported labor, which is self evident, but there's simply no necessity either is granted such access, If neither of them have access to cheap imported labor, then both have to pay higher wages, they can still compete, prices go up and consumers have to deal with it, but again, this is a moral preference about your fellow citizens vs desire to save a buck.

The main reason for declining economies is their trade deficits, but that's mainly a Eurozone issue, where without control of their own monetary policy and enforced fiscal rules, the southern european nations can't borrow to cover those deficits they're running to northern europe, so rather than using debt like countries with their own monetary policy to cover that shortfall (using debt that way isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just Europe is running on a brand of stupid that can only be dreamt up by bureaucrats), their economies are forced into austerity driven contraction. It has literally nothing to do with immigration, and in fact "low skilled immigration" makes things worse for countries like them, because they'd be stuck with welfare state costs that exceed the economic value added, forcing further reduction in their quality of life. Skilled migration, completely different story, but Salvini isn't complaining about college educated Germans moving to Rome (there is a risk related to this though, such as the National Academy of Sciences policy to over import STEM people to deliberately depress the fields wages in the long term, which has then had a run on effect that america's best and brightest go into wall st and law leading to compounding the further importation, but that sort of issue only arises deliberately).

Then take for example, Japan are seeing decent gdp growth considering they have population decline, so they have a solid gdp per capita increase, and they're also using their powerful ministry of finance to create a slow default of their debt (by having interest rates lower than their inflation), and they have basically no immigration at all.

In terms of pure growth, the developing world is growing the fastest, and they tend to have net emigration, not immigration, so that certainly doesn't apply there either.

 

Alteron is ill-informed,

Capitalism depends on immigration, and immigration of cheap labor - that's what this country was built on throughout its history.
​

no better eg than the Silicon Valley, immigrants founded Intel, Yahoo, Google, Nvidia, and others. also immigrants workers ( w special visa ) represent a sizable portion of the workforce in the tech industry.

immigrant workers are also well-represented in the international accounting / consultant firms

 

The issues I pointed out are magnified by being housed in a refugee camp. Things that can mitigate the harm include things like (1) speedy adjudication of their asylum application, (2) not concentrating them into ghettos, and (3) allowing them to reside peacefully but temporarily in the US while their cases are sorted out. Those mitigations would also be proper legal procedure.

Honestly, if the Admin put as much effort in processing immigration as they do trying to block it, they'd have better results. Expand the workforce that can do the asylum application paperwork and you won't have as many people trying to jump the border out of frustration. Appoint more judges to hear asylum claims. It'll be okay because we know most of the claims will be found to be without merit and denied. Having more judges won't mean opening the floodgates. Spend money on ankle bracelets for asylum-seekers instead of on barbed wire. Most asylum-seekers show up for their court date anyway, but an ankle bracelet is alright too. If you cut it off, most people would agree a deportation would be justified. As a partial Frenchman, that refugee camp in Calais was freaking embarrassing. Shaming. I don't want one in Tijuana.

 

They can go home.

 

Yes, they can go home. But, we'd agreed on a process decades ago with international agreements, legislation and rulemakings (not to mention our Constitutional guarantees) that we would apply to all asylum-seekers -- that they can come and apply for asylum and be given a hearing and consideration based on criteria. We can change the process with new international agreements and/or new legislation. But, until then I don't really want to throw the rule of law into the toilet because there are too many people applying. We have to do what we said we'd do. Trump had 2 years of unified government and never got his Republican Congress to make any legislative fix.

 

just double checking, are domestic/gang violence and poverty grounds for asylum?
That's pretty much 99% of these caravan folks are fleeing......

 

Mexico is one giant deadbeat nation. Can't even offer these people asylum after traveling hundreds of miles through its country.

 

They actually do offer asylum but they have to file 30 days upon entry to the Mexican border. The issue is it typically takes that much time to travel on foot through the country to the US... a far safer country.

Also Deadbeat nation is not accurate. Go to Mexico City which is not unlike any major US city. It’s the border cities and rural Mexico that have major issues with drug cartel violence. It is certainly a dangerous country by any measure, but deadbeat nation and saying they don’t offer asylum is not accurate.

Mexico should never be expected to lift a finger to help the US. Honduras, El Salvador, etc. are the counties that the US needs to be spending their time and energy in getting them help so their citizens don’t flee in mass. The reason why it’s not Mexicans crossing in mass but Central Americans tells you Mexico isn’t the major issue here. It’s Honduras, and El Salvador.

 

This is just utter nonsense and simply not true. It's like you are making things up.

Japan has been mired in slow growth for 30 years - because their population is stagnant. Countries need new labor - not to fill job only but to sell things too. How do you think businesses grow? There's really ultimately only two ways. They acquire more customers or they suck more money out of existing customers. Guess what happens when you have a stagnant population and maxed out consumer spending?

Wage pressure is not a good thing. It results in inflationary increases and recessions. The reason the standard of living hasn't increased in this country isn't globalization - the US is manufacturing more than at anypoint in its history - they is more profit being made than ever before, by incredible margins. There's so much wealth in America - it's not just the richest country in the world, it's the richest country in history.

The problem is that wealth is concentrated. Before you had higher taxes and so what would a rich owner do? Hide his money from taxes by keeping it invested in their businesses. That means spending on labor and productivity - which means higher wages and a higher standard of living. Once you cut taxes to a very low amount, an owner doesn't need to keep his money sheltered - he can just take his profit and a very low tax rate and buy crap or put his money overseas. That means less wages and benefits to workers and less reinvestment in innovation.

Instead of realizing this - you'd rather blame illegal immigrants which is in decline since Obama took office as they no longer need or want to come here as they get better opportunities in Mexico. That does drive wage pressure - but because taxes are low companies would rather pay dividend to shareholders. Do you know it used to be that when a company paid a dividend their stock would drop? Now it's an expected outcome. So low taxes and wage pressure doesn't result in much higher wages, it results in businesses figuring out how to eliminate labor with a modest higher increase.

Think about it - look at our inflation rate which is incredible low despite an unemployment rate less than 4% WHICH IS CONSIDERED INFLATIONARY. Yet wages are not really rising that fast. So buying power isn't increasing either.

The reason the developing world grows fast and you have a net emigration is because there is so much cheap labor they are far from being maxed out - you don't need immigrants in India when every day the middle class gets bigger and richer - in other words, they can buy more to fuel the economy. In the US and Japan, where wage growth is stagnant, they only the economy can grow if the population grows.

Do you understand this concept?

 

So far from the truth. Japan is fillings its jobs with workers from outside the country as needed, but they do it in a smart way. Japan fills its jobs internally and when it needs outsiders they aren't made residents. They are typically on work visa, in a strict sense. Its visiting workers are not given full residence. They are deported or leave once their work visa is up. In case people were interested.

Also you earlier, and hilariously, trotted out the who is going to wash the dishes and mow the lawn argument earlier as I expected like the good little NPC you are. Is that all they are to you by the way? Here it is... are you ready for the answer?

Spoiler

Americans. Economics 101. Wages won't be depressed by a massive labor pool of desperate illegal labor, and businesses will have to pay more. Rent will also be cheaper so people won't need as much money to surive, as a large effect of illegal immigration has been an overburdened housing market. There is a direct correlation between residential housing inventory and the rising number of illegal immigrants in this country. Thus the costs have skyrocketed. Also regarding labor, you make the lives of everyone harder when you birth new people in this country. People who wouldn't be competing against the children of Americans otherwise. Instead, they come and often have children who then take up resources from the families of law abiding citizens.

Also why do you care so much about the lawn? Mow it yourself. Dishes? Don't eat out so much if prices rise a little. Who will pick fruit? I guess Americans will. Won't be so bad if wages rise more and housing is affordable again. Oh and healthcare. Well, healthcare and education is another issue but I promise access would be better and taxes wouldn't be so bad. But hey wouldn't it be nice to let all those migrants in? Those wonderful people who pull children by their hair to the front lines of their invasion. Then they throw rocks at our people in an effort to evoke a response that can be conventiently cropped in photoshop? Love how things are playing out. I hope more dems think like Lou here, because this sort of anti-patriotic stuff really is a losing issue for the dems. Keep it up.

 

They can apply in Mexico at a consulate. They don't need to cross, so there is no problem there. Also they don't need to come to the U.S. if they are fleeing an actual situation that requires asylum, since Mexico offered them asylum if they stayed in Southern Mexico. About 3,000 people took this deal by the way.

 

Please everyone, keep throwing out the misinfo and half-arguments you get from late night TV and garbage three-letter news outlets.

 

Where are you getting this frustration thing? I have heard this repeated on news outlets with no source. What about the original plan? They intended to cross the border illegally in the first place. Oh, I am sorry, you wanted to reject your safe haven in Mexico for a better country? Tough. Frustration isn't an excuse. And it is a poor one used to make them look like more of a victim. I am sorry but that argument is so bad. Get that spin out of here.