He made a deal with the democrats, which includes not expelling the dreamers, and money will not be included in building the wall.

So you tell us this:

...and money will not be included in building the wall.

What the heck does that mean?

I got the who (President Trump, and some unnamed Democrats).

Try the what, where, why, when, and how. Then add some editorial commentary, if you like, such as what you think about it.

The immemorial orator's analysis: First the facts, next the proof of the facts, then the consequences of the facts.

Journalism 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws

Crikey!

Edited 9/15/2017 14:59:31

Trump didn't turn back on his DACA position. He was always Jeb Bush on the inside.

Try saying this in Trump's voice. "They broke the law. But they did it for their families. They love their families. Its an act of love."

This is Trump's position right now. Despicable.. The worst part is that Hillary spent twice as much money as Trump. Trump also never attended a fundraiser.

Trump isn't being controlled by big money. Its even worse. He is doing it because he doesn't actually care about the wall.

These people defending Trump are blind sheep. When 2020 comes and the wall isn't built then they will be to blame for letting Trump get away with this.

we can't beat the establishment if all our politicians join the Frankfurt school oligarchy.

Edited 9/15/2017 16:55:12

So I don't know if people on the right have heard of it, but there's this revolutionary idea called the free market that's actually pretty damn good at regulating immigration- as long as every participant is on a somewhat even playing field (i.e., illegal immigrants don't have unfair cost-of-living advantages due to their legal situations).

Seems like that would be a hell of a lot more efficient (and a hell of a lot less disruptive to economic growth) if we worked instead to rip out illegal immigrants' advantages in the job market and let the market steer out the unproductive ones.

It's a win-win. If you're here illegally but aren't pulling your weight, you gotta either get better or leave. The only illegal immigrants that stay are the ones that build their lives here- get jobs, eventually buy houses (or at least rent some place to live), avoid breaking the law (beyond speeding tickets and immigration law), and start assimilating out of economic necessity. And if you're good enough to contribute to the country, then I don't see why anyone would have trouble with you sticking around (if they're going to complain about you 'stealing their job,' they can just earn that job by working harder once there's a level playing field).

You got to build systems that work instead of hoping for good intentions (like the left does) or massive spending (like the right wants to) to take care of the problem. Economics works- so just tweak that system to get it to work for us.

Suppose that rather than a "melting pot" where everyone goes to get rich quick, we are dedicated to an esoteric style of living unique from other human groups. Foreign as that concept may seem to the American "liberal", it is actually the prevailing view of most non-Westerners countries.

Is the material and pleasure a country gives its residents what is ultimately important? If that is the case, the only important differences among countries are economic and legal. Clearly there is something more defining.

You mean a nation-state? Those are just social definitions anyway that change over time based on material circumstance (e.g., the changing definitions of whiteness and blackness throughout American history).

If you want that sort of society, you're welcome to find one to live in. But we've always been a melting pot, and the societies in Europe that you're mentioning are fast shifting in that direction too.

Sorry that there's no room for large-scale segregation in the West anymore.

On the other hand, if you're talking about culture and assimilation, the process takes 2-3 generations and it's worked out pretty damn well so far. You don't even have to leave your home state (or your hometown) to find immigrant communities that have assimilated within American culture instead of imposing their own culture upon the society they head to. Our way of life is better, and it's hard to not recognize that if you live here.

Plus when incoming immigrants contribute to our culture (e.g., kolaches, Auld Lang Syne, Tex-Mex), that works out pretty well and ends up making our society more interesting and unique from others. A large part of the American identity comes from the cultures we've assimilated and interacted with.

There's just no way to live out a life anywhere in the world today without seeing significant changes in your own culture (because cultures naturally change over time- ideas aren't static) or experiencing cultural exchange. America today is very different from America 40-50 years ago, but despite globalization I don't think we're any less unique compared to other countries. We might like Chinese take-out (more of an American concept than a foreign one, anyways) more these days, but that doesn't make us the least bit more like China.

Also, if you define yourself based on your race or your culture or some other stand-in for the collective achievements of other people, try making your life more interesting and taking pride in yourself. We're an individualist society, mate, and it's ironic for people to complain about our collective culture when they can't see themselves and others as individuals.

1) Knyte I totally agree that the free market would fix the problem. The issue is that we don't have a free market. No nation has ever had a true free market. Ironically, its a lot like "true communism" that way.

The social safety net (which I am undecided on) is much more generous in America and especially Europe than in the poorer central American countries/Middle east. Welfare is not a free market principle and it will continue to drive the arrival of more undocumented immigrants. A Guatemalan living on the American social safety net, while poor by American standards, is living a middle class life by Guatemalan standards.

We can't have welfare and open borders. One or the other has to go. As it stands right now, a border wall is more publicly popular than taking the food out of the mouth of a poor child.

2) One problem that is often overlooked with undocumented immigrants is that they can't be screened for infectious diseases and legalizing all of them is a health risk. Leaving the border unsecured continues to bring tropical diseases into the USA.

3) One often overlooked benefit of Immigration is that most of these people from central America are already educated through high school. The most expensive investment that a nation makes is in education. If the USA can steal other another nation's educated workers then that is much cheaper.

4) Cultural assimilation of Central Americans is much different than with Africans or Middle-easterners. Central Americans use the latin alphabet, are mostly Catholic, and mostly genetically white.

Contrast this with a Muslim, Arab immigrant, who uses the Arabic alphabet. Furthermore, Arabs are not nearly as educated as those from European education system (which is top notch). This could be because their education was cut short by war or because their country isn't wealthy enough to provide a high school level learning.

The gap between an American highschool graduate and an Central American high school graduate is much closer than the gap between a European and a middle eastern or African. IMO this is because the European education is superior to the American and the Central American is superior to the Africa/middle eastern.

My immigration position is that we should legalize the healthy, literate, and economically beneficial immigrants. If an illegal immigrant would tak more money in handouts than they are paying in taxes then they should be asked to leave.

However, this does not make them citizens. If they want to be citizens then they have to promise never to vote for a Democrat. :)

Edited 9/15/2017 19:33:18

The Americanization and commodification of cultural products should not be mistaken for a blending of culture. There is nothing "unique" about a consumer culture that superficially celebrates the material aspects of all the world's cultures.

People are free to explore foreign cultures, without marginalizing their sovereignty. If you want to learn about Chinese culture, buy books and read online articles. You don't have to important millions of Chinese people into your town to gain any knowledge about that culture. The actual goal of multiculturalism breaks down immediately upon interrogation. If America is a "melting pot" of different cultures, how can it be multicultural? It would homogenize into one, consumer-capitalist bastardization of a culture. If the goal of multiculturalism is to promote understanding between different people, why then force people to compete for power in one community? I can appreciate Chinese culture a lot better when I don't have to join a collective and vote against their collective to avoid being marginalized.

The majority will always impose itself on the minority, and people will always form collectives around identity. This is historical fact and human nature; to jeopardize an entire nation because it would be "interesting" only makes sense if you're a champagne socialist gazing out from your ivory tower. Only then do you not have to worry about getting beaten or raped or killed in a terrorist attack.

oh, and lemme guess, the jews are doing this "multiculturalism" as well.

@The Cruelest: social safety nets aren't an issue. If you're working here and contributing to the safety net, you might as well enjoy it. If employers continue to not have to worry about social security for undocumented employees, then the much more serious job market problem continues happening (due to the competitive advantage).

Leave an open door for those who are able to contribute. Kick out the rest. It's just a textbook market efficiency problem.

For diseases/etc., we can refocus our border management. Make it easy to get in (*with* documentation) for short periods of time if you're educated, have no criminal record, and agree to health screening/regulations. Then you're in, you're documented, you're hire-able (level playing field with American employees) and if you're able to get a job, you stick around. If not, well, you can't afford to live here then- and we already know about you.

Shift ICE's budget toward actually handling visa overstays (which they currently mostly ignore, even if reported) and you get an efficient system to take in productive people who want to be part of the American economy managed by the hand of the free market. You don't need a perfect free market for that, just take advantage of our existing elegant system that works pretty well (and works even better with less government intervention).

@arthritis: Thing is, American history worked out very differently from how you seem to think it did. We've been a melting pot for a long, long time. Hell, some of the biggest symbols of America- rock'n'roll, cowboys, American film- and some of our key economic/technological advantages over other countries happened precisely because of our openness to cultural exchange. You don't build America by reading books about China. You build America by keeping our ingrained attitude of relative openness toward new, better ideas, and willingness to adapt.

Frankly, the concept of an American nation-state is entirely un-American. It doesn't line up with who we've been or how we got here. The idea's more or less just an European cultural import, and a crappy one at that.

I don't give a damn about multiculturalism, in all honesty. I give a damn about economic production, quality of life, and constant innovation. You're welcome to satisfy yourself in a stagnant nation state, but the American identity is much deeper than what you'll find in Italy or Germany. Here we have a country that's united despite not having a common cultural/ethnic background to go off of, religious differences, and incredible regional variety.

The American experiment has worked, and it's worked better than anything else that exists. I don't why the far right is so insecure about it, or why you think that retaining the core ideology of the greatest civilization in the history of humanity is something only a champagne socialist would want.

I think the issue is that you're insecure about different people coming to the States. I don't share that insecurity, so you seem to think I'm some weeb when in reality I just don't care either way what kind of people come in, as long as they assimilate and contribute. If your presence here makes our country stronger, welcome to the United States. If not, well, you can either leave or stick around in Mississippi where you'll blend in anyway.

Edited 9/16/2017 17:12:31

American "culture" is not my concern. America was conceived after the cultural height of the West and has always been a materialist country, lacking culture in the true sense of the word. Aiming every aspect of society towards some metaphysical goal is true culture.
-
America has not always been a "melting pot." It was not until the late 19th century that non-Western immigration started. The idea of allowing non-English into the country was controversial throughout the 19th century. The founding demographic of America is English colonial settlers, or WASPS. There are other groups, like Germans and Scandinavians that settled here a little later, and they are similar to WASPS. As you move forward, the immigrants are less and less WASPy. The black-brown-white every corner of the Earth picture of America would have been unthinkable in 1776, and is a very recent post-1960s phenomenon.
-
The purpose of a country transcends its ability to provide material or "happiness" to its citizens. Economic prosperity should only be considered insofar as it builds a strong state that can compete with its enemies. Growth for its own sake is empty and decadent. When you give something a purpose - make it symbolic in some way, its success actually means something, regardless of whether the actual symbolism is objectively true or just perception. Since I reject the whole idea that economic progress and a system of rights guaranteed to produce "happiness" is the greatest human achievement, I don't believe "the American experiment has worked".

I don't think you're a weeb, I don't think about you. I try to separate the person from the argument, but I won't follow a code because when they "take the low road" I "take the low road." Perception is everything and victory is paramount.