You need a basic economic history lesson. Back "in your day" a high school education could afford a menial labor job that could sustain a suburban standard of living as a home owner. And I'm sorry but young people ARE NOT struggling to find menial labor jobs, retail jobs, fast food jobs etc. They are struggling to afford rent with those jobs. THAT is the problem.
Then change it with the ballot. We reward mediocrity and deft illusionists, but at what point is our lack of accountability the cause for decay and ruin? Maybe that's the problem rather than unenforceable statutes. This is more a rationalization or something we lie to ourselves to spread blame. Trump spent 2 trillion on whatever he wanted, Congress spent 4 trillion on COVID relief and recovery and Biden spent whatever difference to blow the deficit up to 32 trillion from 27.8 trillion. It's better to argue that we don't want to, that we don't have the collective will to, or that enforcing all of it is an anathema to our ideals of what an American should uphold. Punish employers who are caught hiring illegals with severe and compounding penalities or even jail time, and we've cut demand to black market drug levels. Spend a trillion or two in drone and sonar surveillance. As a cranky liberal, I'm still of the mindset that we can address and fix problems over time. Call it a waste of money, but it doesn't mean we can't Practically enforce them. I think you're missing the point that Practical and Common Sense 40 years ago is inherently different than what Common Sense is considered today...for both sides that already disagree on what is Good and Proper. If it were that simple, Reagan or his successors would've done it. That they weren't successful at it doesn't make the solution Practical nor Common Sensical. My point is that we skirted the issue and convinced ourselves that It Can't Be Done.
Cost of living low enough a parent doesn't have to work 50 hours to pay bills so they can do things with their kids.. Is that a good start? You can do things like study the differences in how upper middle class suburban schools treat bad behavior vs poor urban schools. For example there is evidence that poor school districts are more likely to use law enforcement to detain or arrest students for the same level of behavior compared to a upper middle class suburban school district where they are more likely to use school punishments like detention. This can cause a problem of young urban minority males having a higher likelihood of having an arrest record making it harder to advance in society. What were your suggestions?
For the record, my degree is in economics. You are kinda correct and kinda not. Skilled trades weren't considered "menial labor" back then - nor should they be now. (these are the jobs that are being outsourced to immigrants both legal and otherwise today because someone else feels too entitled to do them, your referring to them as menial labor just proves my point). The problem is that these jobs you say people are struggling to afford the rent with weren't meant to be a career, they were generally held by kids with zero "no bills to pay." They paid mostly minimum wage or not much more. Work gets done and kids had pocket money .... Case in point, you used to walk into a grocery store and there's a dozen or two high school kids doing everything from sacking your groceries to stocking the shelves - literally everything except the butcher (skilled trade) - all making something around min wage - Today that's a Union job (In Texas of all places) and they are making ~$20hr minimum.. (that doesn't seem like much, but it is a significant increase from min wage nearly 300%). Just ask yourself - does that mindless individual (any idiot can do this crap) standing there doing retail sales really add so much value that (he or she) deserves a "living wage" for their efforts? Value added is a concept lost on people today.
I guess your economics degree didn't teach you about America's transition from a manufacturing economy to a services economy. This has been the trend of almost all western developed countries that post Cold War. You know why a retail worker deserves a living wage? Because the economy the wealthy elite have created thanks to what they did to companies like GE and gutting its manufacturing to third world countries has created a demand for a 40+ hour a week retail worker. Are you going to stock the shelves at HEB? Because I can guarantee you that if only part time youngsters held those type of jobs, we would be in a severe shortage. Are you going to do less groceries to lower the demand for these type of laborers? It would need to be a collective action to consume significantly less. If a human has to dedicate 40 hours of their existence to another entity's profit motive, it don't matter if that human is doing the most basic function of work with moving a box 10ft from one place to another, they deserve a functional place to live with working utilities, no fear of missing rent payments, transportation, groceries, time to spend with children and raise them, time for themselves. Yes every human deserves that. Maybe that menial job doesn't let you afford a new BMW, a summer beach home, or a 70 inch 4k OLED.... But it damn well better compensate enough to live with basic dignity and an ability to do basic human things like raise your damn kids.
Trump has not offered specifics but he did say he would target 15 - 20 million people who are here illegally. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigration-what-matters/index.html
Yes we should elect politicians who are willing to make rational and pragmatic decisions that take into account a variety of things to decide immigration policy. First off you have to agreement to spend that much money. Trump couldn't spend on anything he wanted as neither the Republican or Democratic Congresses funded his Wall and Mexico wasn't going to pay for it. Both Trump and Biden got COVID packages through Congress. Part of the problem that we have now is that Congress won't pass funding for new immigration policies, both processing immigrants and increasing border security. As far as punishing employers that would also take Congress to act which they aren't. The practical issue is that there are millions of illegal immigrants here with a lot of support for keeping them from both the Left and Right, although for different reasons. To just round them up will take a significant amount of human resources and will meet resistance. To hold them and process them will take a lot of resources and then to you have to transport them outside of the country. All of this belies the basic supply and demand nature of labor particularly as it regards immigration. There is a large supply of migrants and there is demand among US business to hire them. When laws are out of touch with supply and demand as we saw with alcohol, mar!juana, p*rnography and etc.. there will be a huge impetus to break those laws and for a black market to meet the demands. Common sense since the 80's on immigration hasn't changed that much. There were many then who also didn't want "illegals taking our jerbs" then too. Operation Wetback which Trump's proposal is very similar to was done under Eisenhower. Reagan did do it but you're right in regard to that the Republican party has changed significantly since then.
Just want to note that when we talk about "trades" there are a range that require different levels of training and skill. Trades like electricians, plumbers, masons and welders require a fair amount of training and an experienced person in those trades can earn a decent wage. They also tend to have less immigrant labor and have a lot of unions. Rough carpentry (framing), dry walling, and roofing take less training and considered less skilled work. Those trades tend to earn less and appear to be far more dependent on immigrant labor with few unions. Even requiring less skill to do a good framer and dry waller can still own a good living and with tight labor markets their labor costs are also going up. The labor market for children is much different now than it was in the 80's. Even as a teenager I wasn't expected to work during the school year and was expected to spend more time at school and then do extracurriculars. Looking at relatives and Judo students who are in their teens and early 20's now they have even less free time than me. They are not only doing school work but playing sports, taking tutorials, playing music and etc.. There is very little impetus for them to go and work a service industry job for menial wages both from themselves or their parents. To get these people to work will take a significant increase in wages just to entice them to do so. That has nothing to do with mandated minimum wage or whether they add value but that is what it will take to create the market. That also doesn't address things like construction, meat packing and agriculture where you wouldn't want a lot of teenagers working and legally can't. To reiterate again. Unemployment is currently under 4% even with a lot of illegal immigrant labor. That means that there isn't likely a domestic source of labor that could fill those jobs currently done by immigrants.
That's the crux of the matter. Polling shows that Americans in general consider "large numbers of immigrants entering the United States illegally" as a critical threat. We've been sold a mindset that preserves the status quo and where paralysis furthers it. Again, no one here is promoting that. Reiterating that stance is like propping up strawmen for Don Quixote to knock down. Are you advocating open borders? Does me mentioning it in every reply as a counterpoint serve as a palate cleanser to make my point "more moderate?" If that's what it takes to follow the letter of the law, then do it. Laws can be repealled or amended. It won't be, if politicians are sleeping on the job and it's being swept under the rug. Funding isn't as a big an issue if the American public is going to sleep through an 800B/yr interest only debt payment. The situation we have now in 2024 is from the bed we made in 1980. Were harsh employer penalties for hiring illegals had been swiftly and strictly enforced then, there wouldn't be the "basic supply and demand nature of labor" that we have now. Let's say you find out your wife has been cheating on you, but you grumble and seethe about it for ten years while making it big. Sorry buddy, she's still getting half even if your grounds for filing divorce is adultery. Americans don't want to work for "shitjobs with shitpay" because we've had generations of Americans Accustomed to a social work contract fueled by cheap Second Class labor. Arguing that we kick the can further might sound Practical, but it's negligent and halfassed if you ask me.
Yes, so we should elect politicians who are willing to come up with rational and pragmatic solutions. What is your solution if not that? That is exactly what Trump is promoting and he is according to many polls the leading candidate for President. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigration-what-matters/index.html I'm not running for office I'm a private citizen expressing my own opinion on what a solution should be. There is a candidate though who is advocating what you are saying is a strawman. Again we tried heavy handed enforcement in the 1950's with Operation Wetback. It didn't solve the issue then and was fraught with exactly the issues brought up here. It was expensive, difficult to enforce also it caught a lot of Americans up too. It is referenced in the CNN article in the link above. We can say our social contract is broken and that Americans are just lazy and kids these days pansies. That doesn't change what has been reality for not just decades but really centuries going back to the waves of Irish and Chinese immigration in the 19th C., for that matter slavery, that America has always looked for others to do a lot of it's basic labor.
Look beyond the promises both sides have sold for several generations. Question deeper and care more about the issues impacting real people over talking points with numbers. Think less about tribes and more about grounding principles that promote success in achievable goals and accountability. Okay, I'll bite even if you're pulling me into this. He didn't do it in 2016 much like he didn't lock up Hillary. But if he did in 2024-28, that's the bed we've made as voters, right? Hyperpartisan conflicts devolve into "This is The End if..." or "XYZ is Destroying America". Take a deep breath and consider: Misakes can be and have been made. Even if this were a debilerate mistake, like Prohibition, it's not permanent It's easier to blame another side rather than taking responsibility or holding your own accountable It's harder to extend self awareness that all Americans are more alike in thought and action than we admit At the end of the day, we're all living in the same area with mostly the same worries. Calling the neighbor you've shunned a dipshit might allieve some stress but doesn't do much in the long run. You can say that Americans are just lazy and kids these days pansies. The reason I brought up the difference in generational thinking was to emphasize that Common Sense or Practicality in one era is different than another. So what...Open Borders Nao because "Real Laws" are expensive and unpractical? I wouldn't vote for that, but you might?
I'm having a hard time reading and responding to your post because of formatting issues but will do my best. That's nice and all but how is that an actual solution to the issue? Do you have a set of actual solutions that could be workable into a law. Trump was blocked by Congress, the DOJ, the courts and many of his own administration for things like building the wall, going after his political enemies and his more extreme immigration tactics. The Republican caucus as shown yesterday is more cowed by him now than in 2016 and he's said he will wholesale replace much of the existing executive branch with loyalist. He won't rely upon institutionalists like even Bill Barr in his next administration but on loyalist. That doesn't guarantee he will get everything he wants but he will certainly try. Whether he can or not this isn't a strawman argument as it is an actual policy proposal but up by an actual candidate for President. Again nice sentiment but that really isn't a solution regarding this issue. So when did I say I would support open borders? I laid out a policy solution and one that has passed before and one that has a lot of similarities with a bill currently before Congress. A bill that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis. So who is throwing up a strawman now?
Are you curious or challenging a prior point I made? If we held our politicians accountable even if they're not on our team, then workable laws or proposals will appear up sooner from both sides. All of that uhh belies the basic supply and demand nature of politics if it weren't so easy to game it with emotionality and tribalism. He didn't lock Hillary up last time because of those meddling kids and that blasted dog. Next time's the charm? Okay. He still needs to pass something Bigger and Better in Congress because like DACA, executive orders have their limits. It is A solution, just not the one you're looking for. tl;dr - Chill, it definitely wouldn't be the end of the world and it won't be the end to immigration in the US. So you're saying there aren't ANY politicians like Julián Castro who once advocated decriminalizing border crossings? I'm just quoting him. Such an easy dodge worthy of a cable news talking head.
Again those are sentiments, practically platitudes. Not policy or specific solutions. It’s well documented that he was reigned in and has been discussed in this forum several times. Are you claiming that didnt actually happen? Ok Yoda. Anything more specific? I haven’t looked in the mirror recently but I’m not Julien Castro. For that matter Julian Castro isn’t running for President or any higher office. Just amazing that you accuse me Of strawmaning an actual proposal by an actual candidate for president and then say I would support open borders and justify it based on someone who hasn’t been in office in years.
Trump's plan to deport millions isn't a strawman; it's his stated policy. How effective could he be? It's highly unlikely he can convince Congress to agree to it. But he doesn't necessarily need Congressional approval to carry out these deportations. What he needs is an executive branch that won't hinder him. Based on his statements and actions, he appears set on hiring only yes-men who won't oppose him, unlike in his first term. It's reasonable to assume his administration won't obstruct his efforts. How could he realistically execute this plan? One misconception we should STOP ASSUMING is doubting Trump's team's ability to execute. We should assume his team can find creative ways to implement it. While CBP can handle deportations, they may lack the manpower for mass deportations. Trump might seek cooperation from state governors like Abbott to utilize state police forces or consider involving the National Guard. Thinking outside the box is what Trump's team has actually excelled at... Can anyone stop him? There will undoubtedly be legal challenges that could potentially delay or halt these deportations. But even if the courts rule against him, there's a possibility he could defy their rulings. This scenario isn't far-fetched; when the Supreme Court ruled against Texas's immigration tactic a few months ago, MAGA supporters (including sitting Republicans) urged Texas to ignore it. These are likely the people who will be running his administration.
Yes past history with Trump isn’t completely determinative of those what another Trump Presidency will be like. For all those who say that “well Trump didn’t actually do this when he was president” have to consider that he did actually try to do a lot of what people are saying but was restrained. Trump himself has said that he won’t appoint those people who restrained him again. And to reiterate Trump has said his policy will be exactly what is said here. To detain and deport millions. This isn’t a rhetorical construct made of straw but an actual proposal from someone who very likely could be the next president. Ive certainly not said I would support open borders and none of the leading candidates for President are proposing open borders.
Like you would vote for ANY Democratic candidate. How about you worry about the trash human your party is nominating.
