You answered none of the questions. You just made a statement without any specifics.
I have answered those questions MANY TIMES in this thread. So have other RPers. If you choose not to read those posts or can't remember them, that's not my problem. I see no reason why a group of us should respond to the posts you place that go right back to square one, as if these questions and issues haven't been discussed at length beforehand.
We've been over this stuff many times. AGain, you need to do some reading on the benefits and costs of immigration. There are relevant objections to immigration, legal or no, but I don't think you're voicing them.
Significant benefit to society how ? And on who's terms ? The Society in place or the immigrants ?
Yellow card. Those are questions, not discussion. But by any metric used to measure societal benefit. Except maybe the "I don't like foreigners" metric. But getting back to your claim that they are the cause of the infrastructure demands that result from growth, that is far more the results of people having children within the country (any country). Thus my original point.
Ah, yes, evolution. Things change because there is evolution. The human itself evolves because of where it specifically lives for long periods of time. Some adapt to low light and cold. Others adapt to heat and long bright light and become distinctly different. New families are formed with each successive generation and with them, new ideas and standards of living, that is if a family is to flourish and prosper and continue and to evolve further. Families that like a similar standard of living or culture join together to form societies. And these societies establish themselves in areas. And ...
and... and.. and.. we can all still make babies!!!
Ah, yes, evolution. Things change because there is evolution. The human itself evolves because of where it specifically lives for long periods of time. Some adapt to low light and cold. Others adapt to heat and long bright light and become distinctly different. New families are formed with each successive generation and with them, new ideas and standards of living, that is if a family is to flourish and prosper and continue and to evolve further. Families that like a similar standard of living or culture join together to form societies. And these societies establish themselves in areas. And ...
Been here in North America for nearly 400 years, so one could say from here, wouldn't you think ? 400 years is long enough to say you came from a particular place, eh ? Other than that, we all came from the Rift Valley in Africa from a lady named Lucy ... provided you believe in science
Well, for starters, they could end up having children who turn into - hey, Kurtster, where's your family from?
Been here in North America for nearly 400 years, so one could say from here, wouldn't you think ? 400 years is long enough to say you came from a particular place, eh ? Other than that, we all came from the Rift Valley in Africa from a lady named Lucy ... provided you believe in science
Real discussion - the strain on resources from immigration is insignificant compared to the strain from people already citizens and immigrants provide significant benefit to society.
Discuss
Significant benefit to society how ? And on who's terms ? The Society in place or the immigrants ?
or we could have a real discussion ... whatever ...
Real discussion - the strain on resources from immigration is insignificant compared to the strain from people already citizens and immigrants provide significant benefit to society.
The same is true for people having babies. Really should put some controls on that. Have you compared the number of babies being born to the number of people who immigrated in 2016?
From an economic point of view, it would be much smarter to let all the foreign university students stay and avoid the strain on resources needed to raise kids.
or we could have a real discussion ... whatever ...
and just how do we facilitate (pay) the increased infrastructure necessary for more people ? Infrastructure increases require planning. We went through all this in the 60's through the 80's with unplanned urban sprawl into the suburbs. There were no freeways or where there were, there were no exits for the areas that needed them. Not unlike the way that railroads expanded in the west during the late 1800's.
That alone is the single biggest reason to restrict or control immigration. Infrastructure means roads, homes, doctors, stores, food supplies, etc. And water such as in a place like SoCal. There is not enough water to go around as it is now. We need places and services available in advance, not after the fact. Forget all the political aspects of this debate and look at the cold hard facts of providing for these extra people without making the people already here suffer needlessly. We need order and the only way to maintain order is to control emigration / immigration into the USA, period.
The same is true for people having babies. Really should put some controls on that. Have you compared the number of babies being born to the number of people who immigrated in 2016?
From an economic point of view, it would be much smarter to let all the foreign university students stay and avoid the strain on resources needed to raise kids.
and just how do we facilitate (pay) the increased infrastructure necessary for more people ? Infrastructure increases require planning. We went through all this in the 60's through the 80's with unplanned urban sprawl into the suburbs. There were no freeways or where there were, there were no exits for the areas that needed them. Not unlike the way that railroads expanded in the west during the late 1800's.
That alone is the single biggest reason to restrict or control immigration. Infrastructure means roads, homes, doctors, stores, food supplies, etc. And water such as in a place like SoCal. There is not enough water to go around as it is now. We need places and services available in advance, not after the fact. Forget all the political aspects of this debate and look at the cold hard facts of providing for these extra people without making the people already here suffer needlessly. We need order and the only way to maintain order is to control emigration / immigration into the USA, period.
If its an economic argument...we need growth, and a good way to capture that is with immigration. A growing population adds to GDP, the tax roll...Our expense issues aren't about growing populations, but inefficient bureaucracies, and bloated public pensions.
Access to water/resources is a real issue, but not one that stops at the border. Not that protecting our own isn't a valid argument (isnt this the real debate?), but that means we aren't exactly the land of the free (to my point about freedom). Calls for a new motto.
Regardless, I don't feel the immigrants are the source of the disorder, but our processes, and as someone here before noted, the current admin attempting to circumvent what rules we do have in place is only exacerbating the problems.
If we embrace freedom and living in a "free society" shouldn't that include immigrants? Not necessarily talking about open borders, but no arbitrary restrictions on immigration.
and just how do we facilitate (pay) the increased infrastructure necessary for more people ? Infrastructure increases require planning. We went through all this in the 60's through the 80's with unplanned urban sprawl into the suburbs. There were no freeways or where there were, there were no exits for the areas that needed them. Not unlike the way that railroads expanded in the west during the late 1800's.
That alone is the single biggest reason to restrict or control immigration. Infrastructure means roads, homes, doctors, stores, food supplies, etc. And water such as in a place like SoCal. There is not enough water to go around as it is now. We need places and services available in advance, not after the fact. Forget all the political aspects of this debate and look at the cold hard facts of providing for these extra people without making the people already here suffer needlessly. We need order and the only way to maintain order is to control emigration / immigration into the USA, period.
If we embrace freedom and living in a "free society" shouldn't that include immigrants? Not necessarily talking about open borders, but no arbitrary restrictions on immigration.
'Arbitrary' is the operative word here. Some years ago Congress passed immigration laws that included the right to seek asylum, and the requirements necessary for it to be granted. The AG arbitrarily (and in my eyes illegally) changed those requirements, eliminating gang violence and spousal abuse as valid reasons for a hearing.
Just yesterday a woman and her child at the center of a court case, seeking asylum from an abusive spouse, were put on a plane to El Salvador. During the proceedings, the ACLU and gov't attorneys were notified of the illegal deportation. As of today the judge is prepared to hold Jeff Sessions in contempt of court.
The immigration system desperately needs reform, that's not a secret. But allowing the Attorney General of the United States to unilaterally defy existing law is not the way to go about it.
In my eyes, the biggest problem? Congress' utter inability to do anything. Anything beyond campaigning and posturing is beyond their purview, apparently. It started years ago, but accelerated under Obama (how many times did they vote to defund ACA?), but with the GOP genuflecting at Trump's feet, it's gone completely off the rails. c.
