Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:03 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:So now I hate poor people because I wasn't alive (or otherwise in a position) to make foreign policy decisions 40 years ago?


But you are perfectly happy to benefit from it while telling others "fuck you, I've got mine" while ignoring that, you know what, maybe we have a responsibility to the victims of our actions, because you don't have to care because you personally were not involved.


As I stated before: I'm far more interested in perhaps helping out the Iraqis who helped out American Soldiers in the recent war... unless you have a more convincing argument for why the USA should let in more El Salvadorians.

The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Do you realize how dirt poor the Philippines is?
You're not going to beat the sob stories of my home country on this one.

I am not aiming to beat any sob story; I am aiming to try and show how blocking people who don't know a skill from learning a skill is a pretty solid way to screw a nation over. To use the school metaphor again, if a school says "We only want people who know X" and they can teach people X, then that's a waste for that school, because they are missing out on the people who could learn X skill but don't know it at the moment. There are thousands of people out there who could be incredibly beneficial to a country that took them in and nurtured them; shutting the door on them is not good for the country, and is also (according to my personal moral compass) really damn rude to people just trying to make it in the world and who are looking for a place of opportunity.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:06 pm UTC

Ah, back to the standard GOP, "if some poor people can do it, they all can and the rest are just lazy."
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.


Yes, we know, and your policy is to deliberately take only the people that are well off, while completely ignoring everyone else, simply because that's what benefits you the most. i.e. you are a greedy, callous, piece of human garbage.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:08 pm UTC

Quantized wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Do you realize how dirt poor the Philippines is?
You're not going to beat the sob stories of my home country on this one.

I am not aiming to beat any sob story; I am aiming to try and show how blocking people who don't know a skill from learning a skill is a pretty solid way to screw a nation over. To use the school metaphor again, if a school says "We only want people who know X" and they can teach people X, then that's a waste for that school, because they are missing out on the people who could learn X skill but don't know it at the moment. There are thousands of people out there who could be incredibly beneficial to a country that took them in and nurtured them; shutting the door on them is not good for the country, and is also (according to my personal moral compass) really damn rude to people just trying to make it in the world and who are looking for a place of opportunity.


Sure. And that's why we have a diversity lottery, so even those who are unskilled have a chance to get into the USA.

But the chances of unskilled laborers positively affecting this country are far slimmer than the chances that a bunch of nurses will positively affect this country. Tell me, do you think the typical town would rather have +100 unskilled workers, or would they rather have +100 engineers and nurses?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:09 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.


Yes, we know, and your policy is to deliberately take only the people that are well off, while completely ignoring everyone else, simply because that's what benefits you the most. i.e. you are a greedy, callous, piece of human garbage.


Your poor opinion of me has been noted. Is there anything else you want to say?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:09 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.

You realize part of the debate is that that *isn't* how it has to work.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:10 pm UTC

Liri wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.

You realize part of the debate is that that *isn't* how it has to work.


Good luck convincing Trump that. The current political system is so far removed from yalls ideals that its impossible to plot out a political course.

The fact of the matter is: the immigrant communities who don't share a border with the USA will feel jibbed if "pathway to citizenship" opens up.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:11 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.


Yes, we know, and your policy is to deliberately take only the people that are well off, while completely ignoring everyone else, simply because that's what benefits you the most. i.e. you are a greedy, callous, piece of human garbage.


Your poor opinion of me has been noted. Is there anything else you want to say?

What's the moral argument against increasing immigration limits dramatically?

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:12 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Sure. And that's why we have a diversity lottery, so even those who are unskilled have a chance to get into the USA.

But the chances of unskilled laborers positively affecting this country are far slimmer than the chances that a bunch of nurses will positively affect this country. Tell me, do you think the typical town would rather have +100 unskilled workers, or would they rather have +100 engineers and nurses?


I would rather have a group of people who could grow and become more than have 100 nurses and engineers; at some point, you need people to do other stuff. And again, I think that we should be viewing people not ONLY in terms of profitability, but it terms of where they are coming from and from a more human point of view. Call me an idealist, but I think choosing people who can only benefit you in the here-and-now is dangerous and will eventually come back to bite you in the rear.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:12 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The nature of the immigration debate means that we allocate numbers to each of these countries. The fact is, a slot taken up by an El Salvadorian is a slot that is taken away from everybody else. Its a heartbreaking decision I know, but that's how it works.


Yes, we know, and your policy is to deliberately take only the people that are well off, while completely ignoring everyone else, simply because that's what benefits you the most. i.e. you are a greedy, callous, piece of human garbage.


Your poor opinion of me has been noted. Is there anything else you want to say?

What's the moral argument against increasing immigration limits dramatically?


Mostly the unskilled labor issue. We're losing unskilled labor slots in the USA, so we probably shouldn't let more unskilled workers into this country.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:14 pm UTC

Quantized wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Sure. And that's why we have a diversity lottery, so even those who are unskilled have a chance to get into the USA.

But the chances of unskilled laborers positively affecting this country are far slimmer than the chances that a bunch of nurses will positively affect this country. Tell me, do you think the typical town would rather have +100 unskilled workers, or would they rather have +100 engineers and nurses?


I would rather have a group of people who could grow and become more than have 100 nurses and engineers; at some point, you need people to do other stuff. And again, I think that we should be viewing people not ONLY in terms of profitability, but it terms of where they are coming from and from a more human point of view. Call me an idealist, but I think choosing people who can only benefit you in the here-and-now is dangerous and will eventually come back to bite you in the rear.


So are you against all forms of immigration control?

The fact of the matter is: when creating immigration policy, a rubric has to be created. It seems very natural to grade and prioritize immigrants based on their skills and education level.

And as I stated before: there's an immigration "diversity lottery" for the randomness and the benefits of including a more diverse population into the USA. I'm perfectly fine with continuing to support that. But it is clear that modern society will benefit from more nurses. So... lets let in more nurses into this country. Seems like a very natural solution to our problem of crappy health care.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

By the same argument that taking educated people here is better for us, it's implicitly worse for the impoverished country. So if we take all of their most educated and promising students, and bring them here and keep them, who's left to be the teachers and do the work in their own country? Shouldn't we do the opposite, just in order to help those countries and shed the need for limits on immigration in the first place?
Last edited by Thesh on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:21 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:So are you against all forms of immigration control?

The fact of the matter is: when creating immigration policy, a rubric has to be created. It seems very natural to grade and prioritize immigrants based on their skills and education level.

I am for immigration control based on safety; I think a thorough vetting process to make sure people who are dangerous don't enter is sensible and necessary. But immigration control that stops someone simply because they aren't smart enough or skilled enough? Sounds like a pathway to eugenics to me. (@everyone: if that last thing is dumb, please let me know. It just seems that way to me.)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:21 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Plus, by the same argument that taking educated people here is better for us, it's implicitly worse for the impoverished country. So if we take all of their most educated and promising students, and bring them here and keep them, whose left to be the teachers and do the work in their own country? Shouldn't we do the opposite, just in order to help those countries and shed the need for limits on immigration in the first place?


I very much doubt that claim. Immigrants often go back home and often contribute to their home country. Indeed, its not like the Philippines need nurses, the nurse thing is very much the "get into America" card.

One cousins of mine who like the Philippines are building up startups and business opportunities in their own home. They come to the USA for ideas but his main plan is to start a long-term business in the Philippines. Visiting Silicon Valley and learning about startup culture in the USA was just a part of his journey.

USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides. Furthermore, the capital he makes and brings back to the Philippines will likely be multiplied. $10,000 isn't much in America, but you can easily create businesses with that kind of money back in the Philippines.

Quantized wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:So are you against all forms of immigration control?

The fact of the matter is: when creating immigration policy, a rubric has to be created. It seems very natural to grade and prioritize immigrants based on their skills and education level.

I am for immigration control based on safety; I think a thorough vetting process to make sure people who are dangerous don't enter is sensible and necessary. But immigration control that stops someone simply because they aren't smart enough or skilled enough? Sounds like a pathway to eugenics to me. (@everyone: if that last thing is dumb, please let me know. It just seems that way to me.)


Its called the slippery slope argument, or fallacy. When you use the slippery-slope argument correctly, its a valid argument. When you use it poorly, its a fallacy.

If cutting down one tree in a forest has a 95% chance of knocking down another tree... only 20-trees (or so) will fall down. The whole forest doesn't go down. Similarly, if we actually start doing Eugenics, then the political environment will shift, since its a fundamentally different concept than immigration policy.

So in effect, you shouldn't have to worry about "the whole forest going down", even if there are tons of 95% chances for trees to knock each other down.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:24 pm UTC

(Quote inserted, for context..
Quantized wrote:But immigration control that stops someone simply because they aren't smart enough or skilled enough? Sounds like a pathway to eugenics to me. (@everyone: if that last thing is dumb, please let me know. It just seems that way to me.)

...OK?)

Not dumb. It's close to the "if so-and-so moved from X to Y, it'd raise/lower the average IQ in both X and Y" thing.

Only not IQ.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:27 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:24 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides.


Err... What? No, we paid the cost of education, and they benefited. Fine by me, but if they don't stay here or work for us, then it doesn't benefit us.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I very much doubt that claim. Immigrants often go back home and often contribute to their home country. Indeed, its not like the Philippines need nurses, the nurse thing is very much the "get into America" card.

One cousins of mine who like the Philippines are building up startups and business opportunities in their own home. They come to the USA for ideas but his main plan is to start a long-term business in the Philippines. Visiting Silicon Valley and learning about startup culture in the USA was just a part of his journey.

USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides. Furthermore, the capital he makes and brings back to the Philippines will likely be multiplied. $10,000 isn't much in America, but you can easily create businesses with that kind of money back in the Philippines.

So... why not extend the same opportunities to everyone? To come here and learn? Because it's not profitable to us?

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:27 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The natural state of the world includes Lions eating the children of their rivals.
It also includes dolphins saving whales.

Quantized wrote:Humanity has done some of the most twisted things in nature; some species eat the young of others. We designed ways to murder millions from far away so we can avoid the emotional attachment.
"What'sss your fffavourite ssscary movie?"
"Blood Diamond."
"That'sss not a ssscary movie."
"The Constant Gardener, then. Das Boot."
"None of thhhose are ssscary movies."
"Alright, then. Schindler's List. I see a close relative of some of the worst monsters in recent history every time I look in a mirror. Does this phone call have a point?"
"..... Ffforget it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9pa9wPqUrU

...

I'm sure the danger of expressing excessively polarised viewpoints has already been pointed out, but allow me to point out that "only admitting people that'll benefit the USA" and "putting America first in all things" can look rather terrible. Imagine our boat club fellow is out on the water, on his way to dinner at a nice restaurant on a little island with three friends, and discovers another vessel, almost fully submerged, with a family of four about to be adrift. Quite how they came to be in this situation isn't clear, whether they exaggerated their skills in chartering the boat, the charter company rented them an unseaworthy boat, they got caught out by freak weather, they were rammed by a larger vessel, someone opened the wrong tap or a meteorite fell on them. What is clear is that they need rescuing and our boat club chap is currently the captain of the only vessel within five nautical miles. There's room for them, but rescuing them would mean getting their own finery wet and being late for dinner. In fact, the people in the water ought to be taken back to shore, not out to the island, meaning missing dinner altogether. The whole evening would be ruined, and it's doubtful that the ones in need of rescue would be of any assistance at all in navigating back to port, so there's really nothing to gain from saving them.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/28 ... character/
If you find a man seeking only the affection of those who are great, depend upon it he is ambitious and self-seeking; but when you observe that a man seeks the affection of those who can do nothing for him, but for whom he must do everything, you know that he is not seeking himself, but that pure benevolence sways his heart.
- Charles Haddon Spurgeon, 1876

A man’s character is most evident by how he treats those who are not in a position either to retaliate or reciprocate.
- Paul Eldridge, 1948

You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.
- Malcolm Forbes, 1972


It's nice to post this sort of thing here and hope someone'll be swayed to greater sympathy. Trying to talk some compassion into people I've met elsewhere was like trying to hang oil paintings on golf balls.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:27 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides.


Err... What? No, we paid the cost of education, and they benefited. Fine by me, but if they don't stay here or work for us, then it doesn't benefit us.


Immigrants don't have to stay permanently for it to benefit us.

Quantized wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I very much doubt that claim. Immigrants often go back home and often contribute to their home country. Indeed, its not like the Philippines need nurses, the nurse thing is very much the "get into America" card.

One cousins of mine who like the Philippines are building up startups and business opportunities in their own home. They come to the USA for ideas but his main plan is to start a long-term business in the Philippines. Visiting Silicon Valley and learning about startup culture in the USA was just a part of his journey.

USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides. Furthermore, the capital he makes and brings back to the Philippines will likely be multiplied. $10,000 isn't much in America, but you can easily create businesses with that kind of money back in the Philippines.

So... why not extend the same opportunities to everyone? To come here and learn? Because it's not profitable to us?


A: Our best schools only have limited slots, and many states are cutting funding. We barely are educating our own population, and I find it unlikely we can educate the rest of the world.

B: Its unlikely for a low-skilled / uneducated worker to benefit, due to the lack of jobs for low-skilled / uneducated workers. Working for 5 years as a janitor in the USA isn't going to improve the conditions of the USA or the home country.

C: That's assuming that they can even get a job in the first place. 5-years unemployed is even less beneficial. Since our unskilled labor categories are shrinking (fewer factory workers, despite the growth in manufacturing. Fewer coal mine jobs, etc. etc.), its far more likely that they'll simply be unemployed if they aren't bringing skills to the table.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:31 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:30 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:Plus, by the same argument that taking educated people here is better for us, it's implicitly worse for the impoverished country. So if we take all of their most educated and promising students, and bring them here and keep them, whose left to be the teachers and do the work in their own country? Shouldn't we do the opposite, just in order to help those countries and shed the need for limits on immigration in the first place?


I very much doubt that claim. Immigrants often go back home and often contribute to their home country. Indeed, its not like the Philippines need nurses, the nurse thing is very much the "get into America" card.


Also, a lot of immigrants (this is true of illegal ones as well) send remittances back to their home countries. For a number of countries, these remittances can make up a very sizable percentage of those countries economies--in the more extreme cases, 15-20% of GDP. Because this money is going directly into the hands of families/locals, it's much more likely to be spent in productive ways compared to say, foreign aid, which is more likely to get skimmed by corrupt governments.

[edit]
: Its unlikely for a low-skilled / uneducated worker to benefit, due to the lack of jobs for low-skilled / uneducated workers. Working for 5 years as a janitor in the USA isn't going to improve the conditions of the USA or the home country.


Because of the relative purchasing power of the US dollar compared to the local currency, it may well actually provide some substantial benefit to the home country. Remember, 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. So if you're making $6/hour in the United States and manage to send $1/hour home, you could be doubling your at-home family's income.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:33 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides.


Err... What? No, we paid the cost of education, and they benefited. Fine by me, but if they don't stay here or work for us, then it doesn't benefit us.


Immigrants don't have to stay permanently for it to benefit us.


No, but you have to show that they are staying long enough for it to actually be a long-term benefit. There are limited spots for college education, so increasing foreign college students reduces the space for domestic college students.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:33 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
A: Our best schools only have limited slots, and many states are cutting funding. We barely are educating our own population, and I find it unlikely we can educate the rest of the world.

B: Its unlikely for a low-skilled / uneducated worker to benefit, due to the lack of jobs for low-skilled / uneducated workers. Working for 5 years as a janitor in the USA isn't going to improve the conditions of the USA or the home country.


I think this leads to a conversation about the massive problems with education in America. We can barely manage to educate our own population: maybe we should look into that. But that's a whole different discussion.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:35 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides.


Err... What? No, we paid the cost of education, and they benefited. Fine by me, but if they don't stay here or work for us, then it doesn't benefit us.


Immigrants don't have to stay permanently for it to benefit us.


No, but you have to show that they are staying long enough for it to actually be a long-term benefit. There are limited spots for college education, so increasing foreign college students reduces the space for domestic college students.


Student visas are more about spreading USA culture back to the home country, as well as spreading ideas and culture from their country into ours. Our universities are ideal spots for cultures to mix and improve, and its mutually beneficial to all parties involved. This is less about fixing our employment woes and more about mixing and diversification. Exposing our students to foreigners is very beneficial for a variety of reasons.

But that's a different situation than the work-visas I'm talking about. With H 1B visas, you are hiring people who already have a degree. You are hiring people from "University of the Philippines"
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:37 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides.


Err... What? No, we paid the cost of education, and they benefited. Fine by me, but if they don't stay here or work for us, then it doesn't benefit us.


Immigrants don't have to stay permanently for it to benefit us.


No, but you have to show that they are staying long enough for it to actually be a long-term benefit. There are limited spots for college education, so increasing foreign college students reduces the space for domestic college students.


Student visas are more about spreading USA culture back to the home country.

But the work visas I'm talking about (ex:H1B) are about hiring people who already have a degree.


Then I direct you to my original comment before you changed the subject solely to education.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:38 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:USA gets an engineer for a few years. He gets trained up in the work force, and then heads home to create startups in the Philippines. Seems like a win/win on all sides.


Err... What? No, we paid the cost of education, and they benefited. Fine by me, but if they don't stay here or work for us, then it doesn't benefit us.


Immigrants don't have to stay permanently for it to benefit us.


No, but you have to show that they are staying long enough for it to actually be a long-term benefit. There are limited spots for college education, so increasing foreign college students reduces the space for domestic college students.


Student visas are more about spreading USA culture back to the home country.

But the work visas I'm talking about (ex:H1B) are about hiring people who already have a degree.


Then I direct you to my original comment before you changed the subject solely to education.


I assume this one?

Plus, by the same argument that taking educated people here is better for us, it's implicitly worse for the impoverished country. So if we take all of their most educated and promising students, and bring them here and keep them, whose left to be the teachers and do the work in their own country? Shouldn't we do the opposite, just in order to help those countries and shed the need for limits on immigration in the first place?


I fundamentally disagree with your characterization. Immigrants who return to their home country often return with more money and more skills after visiting the USA for a few years.

At least, as long as those immigrants had good job opportunities and did something more than just be unemployed or do low-skill labor during their stay.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:39 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I fundamentally disagree with your characterization. Immigrants who return to their home country often return with more money and more skills after visiting the USA for a few years.


So why not let people come here to learn? Why not open our borders a bit more? Let the students come to school and everyone benefits.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:41 pm UTC

Quantized wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I fundamentally disagree with your characterization. Immigrants who return to their home country often return with more money and more skills after visiting the USA for a few years.


So why not let people come here to learn? Why not open our borders a bit more? Let the students come to school and everyone benefits.


Our schools don't have enough slots. We should reserve some slots in our schools so that cultures can spread and our students can benefit from diversity.

But there aren't enough slots or schools to educate the US, let alone everyone else in the world.

LaserGuy wrote:
: Its unlikely for a low-skilled / uneducated worker to benefit, due to the lack of jobs for low-skilled / uneducated workers. Working for 5 years as a janitor in the USA isn't going to improve the conditions of the USA or the home country.


Because of the relative purchasing power of the US dollar compared to the local currency, it may well actually provide some substantial benefit to the home country. Remember, 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. So if you're making $6/hour in the United States and manage to send $1/hour home, you could be doubling your at-home family's income.


Unlike the other case however, due to the relative lack of low-skilled jobs in the USA... an immigrant who takes a low-skilled job effectively takes one away from a US citizen. The overall net-benefit to all parties is far less compared to letting in immigrants from in-demand fields.

It comes back to this: If you had 100 slots... would you rather let in 100 people without an education... or would you rather let in 100 people with engineering degrees? The engineering degrees can make $150,000+ in Silicon Valley working for Google and Amazon (and often already have their job interview and everything while they were overseas). That's going to go a hell of a lot further than the unskilled situation.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:43 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I fundamentally disagree with your characterization. Immigrants who return to their home country often return with more money and more skills after visiting the USA for a few years.

At least, as long as those immigrants had good job opportunities and did something more than just be unemployed or do low-skill labor during their stay.


Is it your position that we should take the most educated immigrants? Is it your position that they not be allowed to say? If it's yes to the first question, no to the second, then you are being disingenuous. If it's yes to both, then that's a very strange position to have. If it's no to both, then what in the fuck are you arguing?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:51 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I fundamentally disagree with your characterization. Immigrants who return to their home country often return with more money and more skills after visiting the USA for a few years.

At least, as long as those immigrants had good job opportunities and did something more than just be unemployed or do low-skill labor during their stay.


Is it your position that we should take the most educated immigrants? Is it your position that they not be allowed to say? If it's yes to the first question, no to the second, then you are being disingenuous. If it's yes to both, then that's a very strange position to have. If it's no to both, then what in the fuck are you arguing?


Its not about education. Its about filling up labor slots. I don't think we should be taking in people with PH.Ds in like... International Law. (Highly educated position and all, lawyers don't have as many jobs as they used to). At the moment, specific skillsets (ex: nursing, doctors, engineers) are very much needed in the USA. We should favor immigrants who match the labor categories that are available in our country over immigrants who don't.

The immigrants can do whatever the fuck they want when they get here. Many of them will return to their home country, and in my experience... often benefit from their temporary stay in the USA. Some of them will want to become permanent residents of the USA.

They can stay if they want, they can return home if they want.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:They can stay if they want, they can return home if they want.


But you are okay with them staying, even if it does cost their own country talent while they are left with the most impoverished?

FYI, an RN is a 2-4 year degree, and we don't have a nursing shortage right now - we can easily train people here. In fact, unless you are talking a major crisis or a specific project, the idea that we would have a long term need for immigrants with a particular education is preposterous - if we did, that would be a sign of bad policy, not inability.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quantized » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Quantized wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:So are you against all forms of immigration control?

The fact of the matter is: when creating immigration policy, a rubric has to be created. It seems very natural to grade and prioritize immigrants based on their skills and education level.

I am for immigration control based on safety; I think a thorough vetting process to make sure people who are dangerous don't enter is sensible and necessary. But immigration control that stops someone simply because they aren't smart enough or skilled enough? Sounds like a pathway to eugenics to me. (@everyone: if that last thing is dumb, please let me know. It just seems that way to me.)


Its called the slippery slope argument, or fallacy. When you use the slippery-slope argument correctly, its a valid argument. When you use it poorly, its a fallacy.

If cutting down one tree in a forest has a 95% chance of knocking down another tree... only 20-trees (or so) will fall down. The whole forest doesn't go down. Similarly, if we actually start doing Eugenics, then the political environment will shift, since its a fundamentally different concept than immigration policy.

So in effect, you shouldn't have to worry about "the whole forest going down", even if there are tons of 95% chances for trees to knock each other down.


My apologies, it is a logical fallacy. However, I offer some small support for it in that if people begin to be categorized as valuable or important or superior to others based on skills and intelligence, then it's possible that it could become a situation where those things are selected and those without them are shunted or rejected in some way; say, being refused entry to a country. It seems like it could be a slippery slope to some pretty bad stuff to me. However, thank you for pointing out that my original statement was not backed up and was a logical fallacy and was therefore invalid.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:29 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:They can stay if they want, they can return home if they want.


But you are okay with them staying, even if it does cost their own country talent while they are left with the most impoverished?


In my experience, immigrants who do stay in the US often contribute huge remittances back to their home country. I still feel like the immigrants who stay in the US are providing a net-benefit to their home country.

My late grandma who sent her social security checks back to the Philippines (much to the anger of my more Republican family members) is a good example of this effect.

FYI, an RN is a 2-4 year degree, and we don't have a nursing shortage right now - we can easily train people here. In fact, unless you are talking a major crisis or a specific project, the idea that we would have a long term need for immigrants with a particular education is preposterous - if we did, that would be a sign of bad policy, not inability.


There's a nursing shortage and its huge. We can theoretically train people here, but even with our colleges going full-steam ahead I don't think we're going to stave off disaster. Over 55% of the Registered Nurses are over 50 and are about to retire. The Baby Boom generation is about to hit prime retirement age... and the older age comes with a larger need for more nurses and healthcare services. We're about to be hit with a double-whammy, as (former) nurses themselves will need nurses to take care of them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ge/459741/

But filling the vacancies left by retiring nurses isn’t a simple one-for-one proposition. Nearly 155,000 new nursing graduates entered the workforce in 2015.* While the number of new nursing students and graduates is growing, the nursing-education system hasn’t kept pace, effectively creating a bottleneck in which only so many aspiring nurses can access the training they need. According to an American Association of Colleges of Nursing report, “U.S. nursing schools turned away 79,659 qualified applicants from baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs in 2012 due to insufficient number of faculty, clinical sites, classroom space, clinical preceptors, and budget constraints.”


Fuck, we don't even have enough nurses to teach our nurses. Things are going to be rough over the next few years for Health Care. Accepting immigrants who are nurses is one of the easiest things we can do to hamper the problem.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:31 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I fundamentally disagree with your characterization. Immigrants who return to their home country often return with more money and more skills after visiting the USA for a few years.

At least, as long as those immigrants had good job opportunities and did something more than just be unemployed or do low-skill labor during their stay.


Is it your position that we should take the most educated immigrants? Is it your position that they not be allowed to say? If it's yes to the first question, no to the second, then you are being disingenuous. If it's yes to both, then that's a very strange position to have. If it's no to both, then what in the fuck are you arguing?


Its not about education. Its about filling up labor slots. I don't think we should be taking in people with PH.Ds in like... International Law. (Highly educated position and all, lawyers don't have as many jobs as they used to). At the moment, specific skillsets (ex: nursing, doctors, engineers) are very much needed in the USA. We should favor immigrants who match the labor categories that are available in our country over immigrants who don't.

The immigrants can do whatever the fuck they want when they get here. Many of them will return to their home country, and in my experience... often benefit from their temporary stay in the USA. Some of them will want to become permanent residents of the USA.

They can stay if they want, they can return home if they want.

Ke, do you have any economist that backs up your theory that the economy suffers when low wage immigrants come in?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Ke, do you have any economist that backs up your theory that the economy suffers when low wage immigrants come in?


Not right now. Do you have anything that says the opposite?

I don't think the question is about "the general economy" in any case. A big issue with regards to the current state of things is the lack of low-skill jobs in rural America (ie: the reason why a lot of places flipped from Obama in 2008 to Trump in 2016).
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2152
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:34 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:So now I hate poor people because I wasn't alive (or otherwise in a position) to make foreign policy decisions 40 years ago?
Twelve years ago, your father bought two guys some drinks and sold them guns and ammo. They robbed a jeweller's shop and killed the proprietor. They sold the loot to your father, cheap, and he sold it on at a profit that went with the profit on the guns and ammo to pay off his mortgage. This meant he had more disposable income from then on, and when you were eight he bought a games console, a cable connection, a Netflix subscription, some games and a big TV. The jeweller's daughter, poor due to the death of her father when she was two, wants to come round and watch films on the console that your father bought with her money. You say you shouldn't have to share because you had no part in planning the heist?

You're not going to beat the sob stories of my home country on this one.
Really?
Spoiler:
See The Darker Side of the News, or, y'know, read a paper or something. 39 people burn to death in a youth detention centre after some fool set a mattress on fire in protest at conditions. 35 people confirmed dead after landfill rubbish heap collapses onto shanty town. Police officer who raped 13-year-old girl to spend three years in jail. At least 652 children were killed in 2016, but since Unicef only records verified deaths, the true figure is likely to be much higher, the agency said on Monday. In addition, at least 850 children were recruited by armed factions to fight. In the recent Gaza operations, Israeli forces frequently air-burst white phosphorus in 155mm artillery shells in and near populated areas. “While held by ISIS fighters, Yazidi women and girls over the age of nine are subjected to brutal sexual violence. Most of those interviewed reported violent daily rapes by their fighter-owners. Some were handcuffed behind their backs during the rapes while others had their hands and legs tied to the corners of the beds.” A May 2006 Africa Research Bulletin reported that “in states such as Angola, Burundi, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda, children, some no more than seven or eight years of age, are recruited by government armed forces almost as a matter of course,” while rebel forces in Sierra Leone were known to recruit children as young as five. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow's crime was to be raped and then report it. She was detained and accused of adultery. Aisha was actually 13. But four men forced her into the hole and buried her up to her neck. Fifty men then set about stoning her to death. A nine-month-old girl and her toddler brother from a Dalit family were burnt alive in Faridabad after their house was set on fire early on Tuesday, allegedly by upper-caste Rajput men over a long-standing caste feud, triggering tensions in the area. India’s highest court has ordered a judicial inquiry into the reported gang-rape of a tribal woman as claims emerged that the 20-year-old had been assaulted on a raised platform in front of her entire village. The woman remains in a serious condition in hospital after a village council apparently ordered her to be gang-raped as a “punishment” for having a relationship with a Muslim man, who was not part of the community. A pair of sisters, one of whom is only 15, are to be raped as punishment for their brother running away with a married woman in rural India. The teenager and her elder sister Meenakshi Kumari, who is 23, will also be paraded through the streets naked with blackened faces, according to an unelected all-male village council.


Good luck convincing Trump that. The current political system is so far removed from yalls ideals that its impossible to plot out a political course.
Good luck convincing him of anything. As for what's next:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/ ... ppoinments
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/201 ... ll-do-next
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/18 ... -gonna-do/
Nobody knows. Ask me again in eight years.

Image
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:40 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:Ke, do you have any economist that backs up your theory that the economy suffers when low wage immigrants come in?


Not right now. Do you have anything that says the opposite?

I don't think the question is about "the general economy" in any case. A big issue with regards to the current state of things is the lack of low-skill jobs in rural America (ie: the reason why a lot of places flipped from Obama in 2008 to Trump in 2016).

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed ... es-economy
Here's one. If you think rural America has that problem, then immigration to cities is ok then?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:Ke, do you have any economist that backs up your theory that the economy suffers when low wage immigrants come in?


Not right now. Do you have anything that says the opposite?

I don't think the question is about "the general economy" in any case. A big issue with regards to the current state of things is the lack of low-skill jobs in rural America (ie: the reason why a lot of places flipped from Obama in 2008 to Trump in 2016).

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.ed ... es-economy
Here's one. If you think rural America has that problem, then immigration to cities is ok then?


Ehhh... I'm not fully convinced. The article has a lot of focus on the high-skilled labor category, which I more or less agree with. The article gets incredible hand-wavy and vague when it comes to discussing the low-skilled labor pool.

Focusing on some elements:

Thus, immigration has primarily raised the supplies of the least and the most skilled workers.


So yes, more high-skilled workers is necessary in our current economy. The influx of low-skilled workers however, I don't really think its beneficial at the moment.

Despite these increases in labor supply, in many cases immigrants appear to complement American-born workers rather than replacing them. Because less-educated immigrants often lack the linguistic skills required for many jobs, they tend to take jobs in manual labor-intensive occupations such as agriculture and construction. Even for low-skilled native-born workers in these industries, the effects of increased competition from immigrants are ambiguous, as many take advantage of their superior communication abilities and shift into occupations where these skills are more valuable, such as personal services and sales.


IE: The higher skilled low-skilled workers do fine. What about the others? The article calls it ambiguous, but it doesn't deny the fundamental increase to the low-skilled worker supply pool. Their conclusion seems like a rather callous conclusion as well.

It seems like to survive the shift with the influx of lower skilled migrants, you have to get into more service oriented white-collar jobs. I dunno if you can argue that things are beneficial on the low-skilled side of the coin.

Immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, legal or illegal, are unlikely to replace native-born workers or reduce their wages over the long-term, though they may cause some short-term dislocations in labor markets. Indeed, the experience of the last few decades suggests that immigration may actually have significant long-term benefits for the native-born, pushing them into higher-paying occupations and raising the overall pace of innovation and productivity growth.


And what if your personal situation hasn't seen success in the past few years?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

iamspen
Posts: 488
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:25 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Honest question: do you believe that an influx of low-skilled / unskilled laborers will improve the state of the USA today?


Is today the only day we're allowed to look at? Can we circle a date on our calendars a decade, two decades, 35 years from now? Because the fun fact about all these unskilled laborers is that they have kids, and if we do our job as a society and educate those kids properly, then the first generation that immigrates to the US absolutely does improve the state of the country.

DoIEvenNeedToSayThis
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:47 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby DoIEvenNeedToSayThis » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:55 am UTC

Geez, do the mods really accept posts like "you are a greedy, callous, piece of human garbage." now?

I remember years ago when XKCD was pretty sane and civil. This barely rates youtube comment quality. You should be ashamed of yourselves.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests