2020 Census

[dmp]

and where does that leave those coming here looking for a better life?

It should accompany immigration law reform. My view is people coming here for a better life would be better served in a legal structure rather than under the table where abuse is common.

Let more people in and let them work legally.
Accept people asking for amnesty.  Help stabilize other countries instead of destabilizing them.
Do politicians see the connection between sanctions / poverty on other countries and the desperation of people trying to escape to a place they can put food in their mouths?

 

[JohnRoberts]

and where does that leave those coming here looking for a better life?

Where they've always been, get in line and follow the rules.  We are a nation of immigrants who mostly entered legally. We are also a nation of laws.

The current border problem is economic migrants applying for amnesty when that does not apply to their personal situation, so they would be denied, but the immigration court is so overwhelmed that they get released and rarely show up for their later court hearing dates. This is a well known (even coached) strategy to game the system. 

One remedy is to make them apply for immigration in their home country (at us embassy) where the amnesty claims could be adjudicated there.

JR

PS: We have taken in many actual amnesty immigrants. After Viet Nam we accepted many Hmong who would have been killed if they remained in Viet Nam. Many Iraqi's who helped the US military were likewise given amnesty protection to resettle here. Being a dirt poor farmer in central America is a good reason to want to resettle, but not a justification to jump ahead of the many people already waiting in line. 

PPS: Several years ago Angela Merkel opened the door to something like 1M economic migrants, hoping to gain cheap labor for Germany's industrial factories. She didn't anticipate the culture clash and that door slammed shut. She has since paid a political price. 

 

[dmp]

This is becoming increasingly passe imo.  If it were overwhelmingly the case, word would get out. I'm sure it happens and I'm sure it's quite the contrary as well....

I guess the word 'abuse' can mean more severe things (which I was not referring too)

I meant economic abuse., things like low pay, no worker protections, etc...
There's an incentive for an employer to pay under the table.

We are also a nation of laws.

The laws should apply to the rich and powerful, not just the poor.
When the President broke the immigration laws by employing unauthorized workers, there is something deeply wrong.
Like wise when the President imposes cruelty at the border but does nothing to enforce lawbreaking by companies.
Likewise, when the President's campaign manager evaded taxes on Millions of $ and gets a slap on the wrist by the judge (47 months vs a recommended 24 years) and the judge says he: “lived an otherwise blameless life.” The DOJ intervenes in the sentence to keep Manafort out of a real prison.
When the Secretary of Labor, Acosta, gives a corrupt plea to a serial sex traffic of underage girls (Epstein) and includes language to give immunity to "unindicted co-conspirators" which very possibly includes President Trump.

The great irony of the Republican internet mobs is they projected conspiracies where there was none - but missed the fact that their own leaders were corrupt to the core.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Like not going to jail,getting closed down  and getting fined...etc.... Sounds like incentive enough.
Sounds like  huge risks involved for this incentive..  it's also easy enough to work it where the paperwork falls on the employee if they're acting as subcontractors. All businesses do is file the forms in the beginning...seems easy enough..... But can't to do that .

I read a daily newspaper so see reports routinely about businesses getting in trouble for hiring illegals.

I recall about a year ago a major MS manufacturer (not Peavey) got raided and fined for hiring illegals.

Another high profile case as Asplundh the huge tree service... Apparently the parent company avoided corporate responsibility by running the local offices as franchises, and they were apparently routinely using undocumented workers in these local franchises.

Reform is needed for sure.

Yes, we could stop encouraging so many people to make the dangerous journey to come here illegally by stopping all the promises of sanctuary and free sh__.  I don't see that slowing down until maybe after the primary as everybody tries to lean further left than the next candidate.

The answer to world poverty is not to move everybody here....

Global poverty continues to decline thanks to trade and capitalism. Maybe focus on the real causes of world poverty ( like lawlessness). 

JR

PS: Not to veer but i saw a weird statement about the Afghanistan peace negotiations with the Taliban saying something like women's rights will be protected as defined by islam (code for not equal rights at all). The US women soccer player's pay complaints seem a little silly by comparison.

 

[dmp]

Yeah I used to work for a giant landscaping company back in my younger days that was regularly raided  from what I heard.Never saw one though. I don't even remember what the Customs agency was called then.  One time I remember the fine was a million dollars.

Everyone made the same amount of money though according to their position and , although I'm not sure how they skirted everything, it was just a known risk for everyone I guess..??..  I know my route was probably a million a year and I had the smallest one out of at least 20 so, the company was making a lot of money. Just one account on my route was $650,000/year...  I haven't seen them around but just checked and they're still in business in another part of FL..... One of the largest in the country.....

I just don't understand why businesses do it other than needing help and taking the risk because it's worth the reward of keeping the business alive or growing.... ? Seems that these positions could be filled by anyone,like me,  but it doesn't work out that way. And, like I mentioned, everyone made the same money so I'm not sure if it isn't because some people just think they're too good or skilled for this type of work..no future... or if there really is some kind of benefit in a business doing this I'm not seeing that makes some of these employees end up being undocumented...

I still see the same today....Big businesses doing it.....but everyone gets paid well enough and the same as a citizen , so who knows......

Interesting to hear some first hand observations.
Why would a company break the law for no advantage?
I always assumed they would have to raise pay to attract legal workers. But I don't get it if an under the table worker is making the same as a legal employee.
And legal workers have minimum wage protections, company has to pay the FICA match, worker's comp insurance requirements, health insurance, etc... so they perhaps are paying a little more for a legal worker

Politicians have cut funding for enforcement from the regulatory agencies - part of the regulatory capture economists warn about.

 

[dmp]

I work at a software company has about 1/3 employees on visas. Company does all the lawyer stuff for the visas, OPT & H1B.
Pays the same whether someone is a citizen, greencard, or visa. And many employees that started in visas were sponsored into greencards / citizens.

So kind of a similar observation re: pay

It's very heard to find people with the skills needed and there is a lot of highly educated people in Asia & India. Job postings will get 99% foreign responses, very few US citizens.

But wages are driven by supply and demand, if there is less supply, wages would go up.

 

[DaveP]

White Europeans, like me came to this country uninvited. We committed genocide, clearing the countryside for ourselves. Everyone deserves to be able to peacefully come to this country, seeing as we did NOT. The citizenship question intentionally causes inaccuracies in the census and primarily racists, whose previous generations came uninvited, support this. If these people do not commit genocide upon coming to this country, they are already better people than us. Shame on this country.

As electronic geeks, we understand the value of making true comparisons, so speakers are tested in an anechoic chamber at 1M.
So we test the noise level of tubes under identical conditions., etc. etc.

So my point is, you cannot judge an uneducated generation with a life expectancy of around 40 and suffused with inaccurate intepretations of the Bible against 21st century millenial culture, that's just very sloppy work.

America was "The New World", they even named a symphony after it,  that expains their thinking.  They did not have Star Trek mentality of non interference, that was learned from earlier mistakes.  We try to preserve species now because our ancestors wiped out the passenger pidgeons and the Dodos.  You have your value set because of past mistakes, future generations will no doubt criticize you for obsessing about hydrating and using too many plastic bottles, or spending so much time on your phones that all your information/data becomes known............Each generation makes its own mistakes so best not to judge lest you be judged and found wanting.

As the world approaches population maximum a country has to control its borders and its immigration or face the collapse of law and order.  Each sovereign country has to take responsibility for its own population, they cannot expect other countries to mop up their mistakes (surplus population, corruption, criminality, violence etc.).

DaveP

 

[dmp]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is regardless of whether a citizenship question is on the census or not, the Constitution says the count for political representatives should include all people (including non-citizens). The reason Republicans are pushing for the citizenship question is to scare people into NOT filling it out (and under-count in Democratic areas).

As the world approaches population maximum a country has to control its borders and its immigration or face the collapse of law and order.  Each sovereign country has to take responsibility for its own population, they cannot expect other countries to mop up their mistakes (surplus population, corruption, criminality, violence etc.).

DaveP

I'd recommend the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling.  Dispells some of the doom and gloom of population rise and explains how lifting people out of poverty is a benefit to all. Cooperation can be better than competition.   
For wealthy countries to impose austerity, sanctions, war, and oppression on the poorer areas of the world and then think it is correct to harden their borders against the desperate people is just lunacy. 
The facts show that poverty drives high population growth - over and over it's been seen that as people escape poverty the birth rate drops to replacement and then even lower (as in the 1st world). 

 

[Matador]

Another partisan ink blot test...

In this case, no ink blot interpretation is needed!  The ink blots are in the form of words that we can just read.

DMP laid it out quite nicely:  GOP consultant calculates that at least in Texas, adding a  citizenship question to depress answer rate will impact blue areas more than red areas.  He says in Texas, a citizenship question would net 3-6 seats in Texas alone, and lists other states where this should hold true as well (mostly purple and blue-leaning states).  He states his conclusion that the citizenship question is a net representation win for the GOP.  There isn't a single word in his report about 'more accurate counting of the populace'.

He then says Democrats will likely complain about this, so it should be sold as trying to enforce the voting rights act.  He then drafts the first letter from the DOJ that explains that the citizenship question is to enforce the voting rights act.  This is what his emails show.

So how exactly is this a 'we're watching two movies', 'both sides have dirty hands situation?  Are you saying the emails and documents are fake?

 

[DaveP]

I'd recommend the book Factfulness by Hans Rosling.  Dispells some of the doom and gloom of population rise and explains how lifting people out of poverty is a benefit to all. Cooperation can be better than competition.   
For wealthy countries to impose austerity, sanctions, war, and oppression on the poorer areas of the world and then think it is correct to harden their borders against the desperate people is just lunacy. 
The facts show that poverty drives high population growth - over and over it's been seen that as people escape poverty the birth rate drops to replacement and then even lower (as in the 1st world).

Communism is the ultimate cooperation and is probably the perfect system I agree,  unfortunately it requires people with no vices in order to work, that is why competition is added to ensure that people do their best.

What drives high population growth is culture and doctrine.  Muslim/Indian countries the former and Catholic countries the latter.  On top of that there is the provision of medical services without pension provision so more children survive that need more children to support them in old age, its like a deadly pyramid scheme (Ponzi scheme in American)

DaveP

 

[dmp]

What drives high population growth is culture and doctrine. 

Nope, poverty.  read the book.  If you have a reference for your belief, I will read it and then we can come back, both having read the what the other recommended, and try to reach an agreement.
A lot of people believe that same as you, but in macro the data show that birthrates drop as people escape poverty. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Nope, poverty.  read the book.  If you have a reference for your belief, I will read it and then we can come back, both having read the what the other recommended, and try to reach an agreement.
A lot of people believe that same as you, but in macro the data show that birthrates drop as people escape poverty.

I kind of agree with you (don't be shocked) but conditionally. This is not a new question.

Birth rates have multiple input factors, mostly based on future expectations. If you expect most of your children to die before they grow to adulthood, you push out a bunch of spares. If you are dependent on having living children to care for you in old age, you want at least enough extra kids so you have adult children survive to care for you.

Wealthy western nations have pretty much managed to stop the large fraction of infant deaths, making spares less necessary.  China had (has?) a pretty well studied and very unpopular one-child policy that led to many female infants (cough?) dying unexpectedly, and later not enough women for all the male children who didn't die mysteriously.  : (Male children are preferred when you only get one.)

In wealthy nations birthrate tracks down with wealth. If we don't need the kids, we don't need the hassle.
===

Some cultures (religions) promote above average birthrates to gain political power.  I have been called names for sharing this before, but a fair long game strategy in some current situations, and/or past historical situations.


===

I will not address the too many people for the planet to support screed, since we always manage to find a way... If anything more people these days are too fat than starving.

The problem with being old is that you heard all these end of the world doom and gloom stories before.

JR 

 

[Scodiddly]

PS: Not to veer but i saw a weird statement about the Afghanistan peace negotiations with the Taliban saying something like women's rights will be protected as defined by islam (code for not equal rights at all). The US women soccer player's pay complaints seem a little silly by comparison.

Wow.  Just wow.      We do disagree a lot, John, but this is pretty far out even by that standard.

 

[DaveP]

Birth rates have multiple input factors, mostly based on future expectations. If you expect most of your children to die before they grow to adulthood, you push out a bunch of spares. If you are dependent on having living children to care for you in old age, you want at least enough extra kids so you have adult children survive to care for you.

I agree with this basic theory, it has worked for the West where most of the population is either Protestant or Secular.  It does not work in countries with very strong Catholic beliefs however, witness the stream of immigration trying to get into the USA.  The fear in the US is that the Hispanic population will breed at a faster rate and change the demographic.  Why would they do this when living in the West if it was not for culture or doctrine?

I will not address the too many people for the planet to support screed, since we always manage to find a way... If anything more people these days are too fat than starving.

The problem with being old is that you heard all these end of the world doom and gloom stories before

As an American, you have not factored in Climate Change in your assessment.  You and I will not be around to see it, but our grandchildren will live in a completely different world which will make our immigration problems today look very small indeed.  The world is not particularly stable at the moment, let alone when it gets stressed over water, rising sea levels and excessive heat.  Imagine India with its caste system when the temp goes over 50C.

DaveP

 

[fazer]

As an American, you have not factored in Climate Change in your assessment.  You and I will not be around to see it, but our grandchildren will live in a completely different world which will make our immigration problems today look very small indeed.

Indeed.  If hydro carbon creation is the problem then the cause is more people living a modern life , and more co2 and pollution  in the air.  Green technology requires heavy amounts of energy to create batteries and solar cells and such.  (in some cases the same as the use of hydrocarbons vehicles and homes). Over population or our current population with countries moving into a western style of living, creates more greenhouse gases.  Dependency on energy is going up with a higher standard of living .    7 billion people moving to 9 billion by 2050 is a challenge for the world.  The only way I see it working is a culture change to a much smaller energy footprint.  But that said,  living in high rise boxes in mega cities is not my idea of progress.   

 

[JohnRoberts]

I agree with this basic theory, it has worked for the West where most of the population is either Protestant or Secular.  It does not work in countries with very strong Catholic beliefs however, witness the stream of immigration trying to get into the USA.  The fear in the US is that the Hispanic population will breed at a faster rate and change the demographic.  Why would they do this when living in the West if it was not for culture or doctrine?

We need higher birth rates to keep the social security chain letter/ponzi scheme going... Don't ASSume that higher birth rates would be a bad thing. Or that we are all narrow minded racists. 8) (While there are probably a few).

Your religion/high birth rate screed is starting to sound repetitious. That said I'm sure it was absolutely the plan at some time in early history, and I have suspicion it is a current active strategy in at least one middle east conflict, where dying of old age is not very common for young males.  :-[

As an American, you have not factored in Climate Change in your assessment.  You and I will not be around to see it, but our grandchildren will live in a completely different world which will make our immigration problems today look very small indeed.  The world is not particularly stable at the moment, let alone when it gets stressed over water, rising sea levels and excessive heat.  Imagine India with its caste system when the temp goes over 50C.

DaveP

I have more faith in human ingenuity to take action when and if it is indicated, than you and many. I am repeating myself but more than one economist has written about active strategies we could use to cool the planet fairly quickly, but only when and if absolutely neccesary. We need to be very careful when messing with climate on a global scale to avoid unintended consequences, upsetting a potentially chaotic system.  The only good thing about the carbon hatred, is that is will not change anything for centuries, even is they could pull it off... It is kind of like a massive magic trick where the population is hypnotized to believe the world is at risk, and they can personally feel good because they are doing something about it no matter how ineffectual. Weren't we supposed to be under water by now?

Global warming does not only create losers, but there will be winners too with new arable farmland in formerly arctic regions etc. There is no magic one single ideal temperature to maintain the planet's temperature at. It has always been changing and will continue to, but we are now far more capable of using technology to adapt and deal with change than in past cycles of warming/cooling.

  The political/media cabal is hitting the doom and gloom note hard to scare the sheeple and gain power. 

JR

PS: I do not speak for all of america, but i have been paying attention to this for several decades.

 

[DaveP]

I have more faith in human ingenuity to take action when and if it is indicated, than you and many. I am repeating myself but more than one economist has written about active strategies we could use to cool the planet fairly quickly, but only when and if absolutely neccesary. We need to be very careful when messing with climate on a global scale to avoid unintended consequences, upsetting a potentially chaotic system.

I would feel more assured if you had said a scientist rather than an economist.

What events would trigger this scheme in your estimation?

I guess it would have to be while world co-operation was still possible and before countries started to go to war over water and food resources.

Sorry to sound repetitive, but when nothing changes, the description stays the same.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

I would feel more assured if you had said a scientist rather than an economist.

a scientist...  : : :

What events would trigger this scheme in your estimation?

After far more research and understanding of the science than we now possess... Like if some catastrophe was imminent. This is a very slow moving phenomenon.

I guess it would have to be while world co-operation was still possible and before countries started to go to war over water and food resources.

Again  ;D

If countries start manipulating weather and climate do you think for a second it won't be weaponized? (gamed for advantage.) Wait for the fireworks to start then....    Maybe we could have the UN manage it (kidding, their interest is limited to the Benjamins).

I'll bet there is already (secret) research experiments going on to that end, but not for public consumption. Some experiments are not very secret at all.  Scientists have been working on this for decades (I've written about this for years right here).

Sorry to sound repetitive, but when nothing changes, the description stays the same.

DaveP

Not sure I understand that one? Stuff is always changing.

Taking action without a good plan is "not" better than doing nothing.

The good news about the current (feel good) global warming strategy is that it will have essentially no measurable effect on the climate for centuries and so will do no harm.

Measure twice maybe cut never....

JR

 

[DaveP]

After far more research and understanding of the science than we now possess... Like if some catastrophe was imminent. This is a very slow moving phenomenon.

This is where the problem lies, you think climate change is linear, the rest of us think its exponential, with unfortunately............ a tipping point.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is where the problem lies, you think climate change is linear, the rest of us think its exponential, with unfortunately............ a tipping point.

DaveP

I do not speak for popular sentiment, just my own opinion informed by years of paying attention. I may even be incorrect, but i don't think so.  8)

There have been scary science fiction movies exploring the climate change tipping point, and geologic record suggests that the magnetic poles have even moved before. Stuff happens.

I do not say ignore this but we must understand it far better than we do now before undertaking active cooling.

If it makes you feel better to raise energy prices for the poor people of the world, and give more control to government bureaucrats, be my guest. Do not fool yourself into thinking that you are changing the climate. If anything, it would  make the quality of life worse for millions of people.

Perhaps google projections of atmospheric CO2 over the next couple centuries.

However, even if humans were to completely cease carbon emissions tomorrow, it would probably take thousands of years for the excess carbon dioxide to clear out of the atmosphere, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It, therefore, remains unlikely that atmospheric CO2 levels will decrease significantly in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere means that the climate would continue warming until the Earth restores itself to its natural equilibrium. 

In the absence of major disturbances, newly planted or regenerating forests can continue to absorb carbon for 20–50 years or more. In comparison to preventing the loss of natural forests, however, tree planting has the potential to make only a limited contribution to reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

I also found the old hockey stick graph still in circulation. I thought that was debunked long ago. You will surely find many references sympathetic to your POV.

Politicians require a scary bogeyman to rally citizens together in opposition. Climate change very neatly fills that bill as an existential threat and has an extra bonus of allowing bureaucrats to grab more control over the energy economy while having pretty much zero effect on the hypothetical problem.  A political gift that keeps giving in perpetuity.

I would be inclined to ignore this as harmless except that the economic damage done to poor people is impossible to ignore.

JR