Bunk. There several reasons for the push back against open borders. The article states it is because of the colour of the migrants skin, and granted there are likely plenty of racists holding this view. But the vast majority push back because they see economic competition for US jobs from migrants who will be willing to work for less. This is a failure of coastal elites who control policy but have no skin in the game. Shameful to paint this as solely a race issue.
Low-skilled immigrants grow the economy, thus creating jobs, and compete with Americans on very few jobs, because they tend to take the jobs Americans don't want at all. (It's why they get hired in the first place.) So the people who oppose immigration because of economic competition are simply ignorant of the economics and sociology of immigration, and I'm not sure "We're not bigots, we're just ignorant!" is all that much better of a defense.
First, we don't have open borders... that's a talking point, not a fact. Biden has continued many of Trump's policies, and detentions/deportations have soared under Biden.
Second, there a a multitude of jobs that US citizens refuse to do. Kansas is so desperate for workers, it's offering relocation packages to migrants.
Every economic study shows the immense benefits to a society from immigrant labor (never mind the vast numbers of small businesses started by immigrants or the fact that 40% of Nobel Prize winners over the past 15 years have been won by immigrants).
Immigration is vital to society, especially with plummeting birthrates.
Again, no one is advocating for open borders, but with Congress unwilling to enact legislation to govern immigration, it's an impossible dilemma.
Even with a bi-partisan bill passed by the Senate, Republican House Speaker refuses to allow a vote because Trump wants the issue.
"There is a multitude of jobs that US citizens refuse to do..." at the wages being offered, yes which is proving my point.
"40% of Nobel prize winners ..." not relevant in this context.
"Every economic study shows the immense benefits to a society from immigrant labour...". Immigrant labour or immigration ? Not necessarily the same thing. Immigration provides more consumers which is great for some corporations and businesses, and can increase GDP but is largely a Ponzi scheme which kicks the can down the road (unless you believe in umlimited growth). Look at Canada's current episode. Without reviewing the "economic studies" to which you refer I will only say that many are based on motivated reasoning and ask the wrong questions. What we need to do is to figure out how to run a sustainable society without destroying the planet and in a manner that preserves the quality of life (maybe per capita GDP or some other measure) for the country. This entails being able to produce the same with fewer people. If you want to include others from outside of the country in that, then there should be a national referendum.
I leave you with 2 thoughts: 1) Immigrant labor adds hundreds of billions to our tax revenues...this is not a "consumption" argument, and 2) the issue is not one of payment...US citizens will not do the specific type of work for any amount.
There is a reason why child labor laws are being rolled back in GOP-led states...they cannot fill the jobs. Child labor is a clear sign of a sick society.
Again, this binary of open vs closed borders is a fallacious one.
Immigration reform is essential. A bill passed the Senate, Biden said he would sign it, but the House Speaker refuses to bring it to the floor because Trump wants to run on immigration.
I agree with most of the points made in this article; however, I think it shows a lack of perspective for how the current immigration crisis really is pressing communities across the country right now. As a Chicagoan, I’ve seen myself how our poorest citizens have been expected to stomach cuts to social programming and reappropriated community spaces in order to accommodate the surge. It’s important we have compassion for those seeking asylum, and even those entering illegally, but it’s also important that if we’re welcoming all of these people into the country, that we don’t dump them on communities that we are already failing, with no additional resources. Our current immigration policy is failing our poorest communities, and while congressional republicans shoulder much of the blame, so too does our president, who refuses to do anything about this by EO.
If Abbott is ignoring the Supreme Court, how far do you think an executive order would go? President Biden is only that; the President. He’s not a king, as one Judge Chutkan reminded tfg. This issue falls directly on Congress; not the courts nor the President. The republican puppet, disguised as Mike Johnson, is trumps surrogate in this. In my own opinion, these governors are also insurrectionists and should be charged as such. Probably just as well I’m not the USAG. I’d call their bluff and let the chips fly.
We already know that the likes of Abbott and DeSantis are purposefully flying migrants to large, mostly democratically led big cities that they have always viewed as sanctuary cities. What would be poetic justice would be if Biden could redirect federal tax money that would go back to such states that are doing such awful acts, to the cities that are having to deal with the people who are being so meanly treated.
Redirect more funds to help cities manage migrant housing and programs; make it easier for migrants to get work visas so they could get on their feet faster.
First, let me just say thanks for engaging with me, instead of blocking me, as the author Thomas Zimmer decided to do after reading my comment. Secondly, it’s possible they won’t, but while it winds through the courts, it would help cities get through the winter at least. Biden didn’t let the possibility of SCOTUS striking it down keep him from canceling student loan debts, right? It would show that he cares about the on-the-ground conditions.
I agree with your concerns about the obvious impacts on communities from the influx of immigrants, and I wish that Biden had pushed for even a partial solution early in his administration (before it became an election year football).
Any unilateral action by Biden now would problematic, unless he invoked emergency powers...which themselves would unleash a political maelstrom.
At this point, everyone is to blame, but there is a bi-partisan Senate bill that Johnson refuses to bring to the House floor. If a Democratic Speaker did this, legacy media would immolate the party.
Bunk. There several reasons for the push back against open borders. The article states it is because of the colour of the migrants skin, and granted there are likely plenty of racists holding this view. But the vast majority push back because they see economic competition for US jobs from migrants who will be willing to work for less. This is a failure of coastal elites who control policy but have no skin in the game. Shameful to paint this as solely a race issue.
Low-skilled immigrants grow the economy, thus creating jobs, and compete with Americans on very few jobs, because they tend to take the jobs Americans don't want at all. (It's why they get hired in the first place.) So the people who oppose immigration because of economic competition are simply ignorant of the economics and sociology of immigration, and I'm not sure "We're not bigots, we're just ignorant!" is all that much better of a defense.
First, we don't have open borders... that's a talking point, not a fact. Biden has continued many of Trump's policies, and detentions/deportations have soared under Biden.
Second, there a a multitude of jobs that US citizens refuse to do. Kansas is so desperate for workers, it's offering relocation packages to migrants.
Every economic study shows the immense benefits to a society from immigrant labor (never mind the vast numbers of small businesses started by immigrants or the fact that 40% of Nobel Prize winners over the past 15 years have been won by immigrants).
Immigration is vital to society, especially with plummeting birthrates.
Again, no one is advocating for open borders, but with Congress unwilling to enact legislation to govern immigration, it's an impossible dilemma.
Even with a bi-partisan bill passed by the Senate, Republican House Speaker refuses to allow a vote because Trump wants the issue.
"There is a multitude of jobs that US citizens refuse to do..." at the wages being offered, yes which is proving my point.
"40% of Nobel prize winners ..." not relevant in this context.
"Every economic study shows the immense benefits to a society from immigrant labour...". Immigrant labour or immigration ? Not necessarily the same thing. Immigration provides more consumers which is great for some corporations and businesses, and can increase GDP but is largely a Ponzi scheme which kicks the can down the road (unless you believe in umlimited growth). Look at Canada's current episode. Without reviewing the "economic studies" to which you refer I will only say that many are based on motivated reasoning and ask the wrong questions. What we need to do is to figure out how to run a sustainable society without destroying the planet and in a manner that preserves the quality of life (maybe per capita GDP or some other measure) for the country. This entails being able to produce the same with fewer people. If you want to include others from outside of the country in that, then there should be a national referendum.
It is defacto open borders.
I would urge you to read the economic analyses.
I leave you with 2 thoughts: 1) Immigrant labor adds hundreds of billions to our tax revenues...this is not a "consumption" argument, and 2) the issue is not one of payment...US citizens will not do the specific type of work for any amount.
There is a reason why child labor laws are being rolled back in GOP-led states...they cannot fill the jobs. Child labor is a clear sign of a sick society.
Again, this binary of open vs closed borders is a fallacious one.
Immigration reform is essential. A bill passed the Senate, Biden said he would sign it, but the House Speaker refuses to bring it to the floor because Trump wants to run on immigration.
Fair enough, I will read the economic analysis.
It is absolutely about the color of the immigrants' skin. Trump openly pined for more Aryan immigrants:
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1F11QK/
Trump is 1 person
Hahaha, that's hilarious. Yeah, TFG is just some guy. Definitely not the leader of the populist Right, nope.
What migrants are qualified to take your job?
None but I’m a coastal elite
I agree with most of the points made in this article; however, I think it shows a lack of perspective for how the current immigration crisis really is pressing communities across the country right now. As a Chicagoan, I’ve seen myself how our poorest citizens have been expected to stomach cuts to social programming and reappropriated community spaces in order to accommodate the surge. It’s important we have compassion for those seeking asylum, and even those entering illegally, but it’s also important that if we’re welcoming all of these people into the country, that we don’t dump them on communities that we are already failing, with no additional resources. Our current immigration policy is failing our poorest communities, and while congressional republicans shoulder much of the blame, so too does our president, who refuses to do anything about this by EO.
If Abbott is ignoring the Supreme Court, how far do you think an executive order would go? President Biden is only that; the President. He’s not a king, as one Judge Chutkan reminded tfg. This issue falls directly on Congress; not the courts nor the President. The republican puppet, disguised as Mike Johnson, is trumps surrogate in this. In my own opinion, these governors are also insurrectionists and should be charged as such. Probably just as well I’m not the USAG. I’d call their bluff and let the chips fly.
Not an executive order on the border. An executive order to help struggling cities buckling under the weight.
We already know that the likes of Abbott and DeSantis are purposefully flying migrants to large, mostly democratically led big cities that they have always viewed as sanctuary cities. What would be poetic justice would be if Biden could redirect federal tax money that would go back to such states that are doing such awful acts, to the cities that are having to deal with the people who are being so meanly treated.
Yes, that is what I am asking for. Also they’re not “viewed” as sanctuary cities; many have literally declared it.
The author of this piece blocked me for this comment. Can you say “intellectually fragile?”
What specifically can Biden do via Executive Orders?
Of these efforts, which would be upheld by SCOTUS?
Redirect more funds to help cities manage migrant housing and programs; make it easier for migrants to get work visas so they could get on their feet faster.
And you believe this SCOTUS would allow Biden to redirect funds approved by Congress?
First, let me just say thanks for engaging with me, instead of blocking me, as the author Thomas Zimmer decided to do after reading my comment. Secondly, it’s possible they won’t, but while it winds through the courts, it would help cities get through the winter at least. Biden didn’t let the possibility of SCOTUS striking it down keep him from canceling student loan debts, right? It would show that he cares about the on-the-ground conditions.
SCOTUS did strike down student loan relief.
I agree with your concerns about the obvious impacts on communities from the influx of immigrants, and I wish that Biden had pushed for even a partial solution early in his administration (before it became an election year football).
Any unilateral action by Biden now would problematic, unless he invoked emergency powers...which themselves would unleash a political maelstrom.
At this point, everyone is to blame, but there is a bi-partisan Senate bill that Johnson refuses to bring to the House floor. If a Democratic Speaker did this, legacy media would immolate the party.
*temporary work authorization, not visas, sorry