For those who defend Trump

[bardegaulois]

10 hours ago, havok579257 said:

laws are what make us civilized?  like the law that we are allowed to kill unborn children?  how does that law make us civilized?  or the law we are allowed to execute people we "believe" are guilty, who later turn out ot be innocent, thus executing an innocent man?  does that law make us civilized?

 

citing concrete examples for this is like showing concrete examples of voter fraud.  When there is no investigation into something its kind of hard to prove.  Most on here believe voter fraud exists and we should have a way of screening votes so there is no fraud but are unable to prove that mass voter fraud exists because there is never any investigation into it by elected officals.

 

also where on earth would you get concrete examples from? on what planet would the country who illegally keeps immigrants out record their findings to show that they illegally held people out?  Your asking for documented proof when the only people able to provide the proof are those committing the act.  

i wouldn't argue is virtually impossible but it is very hard and a long drawn out process.  So is the father supposed to wait years in line to get approved for legal immigration status all the while fearing for his childrens saftey on a daily basis.  Knowing sooner rather than later he daughter could be kidnapped into sex slavery, or raped or killed.  

 

Yes ideally the people of the country should work to improve their country but let's be realistic, its not going to suddenly happen.  Many officials are to afraid to do anytrhing because they fear for their families lives.  

 

So what is the father supposed to do?  Just smell of elderberries it up and wait in line, for something that is really hard to get into and the wait is years or come here illegally?

So, wait, let me get this straight: are you trying to draw a moral equivalency between abortion and capital punishment on the one hand, and laws designed to regulate immigration so as to protect the interests of the domestic labour pool on the other? If so, I would think you would need a firmer course in moral theology and ethics.

[Peace]

8 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

So, wait, let me get this straight: are you trying to draw a moral equivalency between abortion and capital punishment on the one hand, and laws designed to regulate immigration so as to protect the interests of the domestic labour pool on the other? If so, I would think you would need a firmer course in moral theology and ethics.

His/her point is valid. The existence of laws do not make a society civilized. A law must be just in order for it to make a society more civilized. He/she raised abortion laws as an example to illustrate this point. The question, then, is whether our immigration laws are just.

[havok579257]

9 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

So, wait, let me get this straight: are you trying to draw a moral equivalency between abortion and capital punishment on the one hand, and laws designed to regulate immigration so as to protect the interests of the domestic labour pool on the other? If so, I would think you would need a firmer course in moral theology and ethics.

no, i am trying to show you that laws choosen by partisan officials who bend to the will of their donors do not make us civilized.  You made the claims laws make us civilized.  I would argue God's laws make us civilized, not man's laws.  There are many examples throughout history where men made laws that are not civilized (slavery, abortion, blacks and women unable to vote).  JUst because there is an immigration law on the books put in place by man and "not" God does not make the law civilized.  Your arguement is flawed that man made laws make us civilized.

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

His/her point is valid. The existence of laws do not make a society civilized. A law must be just in order for it to make a society more civilized. He/she raised abortion laws as an example to illustrate this point. The question, then, is whether our immigration laws are just.

Immigration laws are moral in general principle per the USCCB.   Governments get the benefit of initial respect per the CCC.  They need to be tweaked and improved.  A wall is fine IF it includes a gate.    A policy of foreign relations must include immigration as well as aid and encouragement for them to improve their situation.

[bardegaulois]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

His/her point is valid. The existence of laws do not make a society civilized. A law must be just in order for it to make a society more civilized. He/she raised abortion laws as an example to illustrate this point. The question, then, is whether our immigration laws are just.

Well, I believe that they are just, and that yet more restrictions would as well be just. Even policies designed to deter illegal immigration all the more - e.g., a border wall, military deployment on the US-Mexico border, streamlining immigration law proceedings, restricting welfare-state benefits to citizens and legal residents only - would not be any less just.

We must consider that one in six Americans is now living in poverty. One in five require some type of government assistance. One in four children benefit from food stamps. For all the vaunted "jobs created" by the Obama administration, a greater number have given up looking for work, and have thus fallen out of the official statistics. We haven't rate a lower number of adults employed since the 1980s. In the meantime, our median household income has shrunk by thousands over the past decade and a half, and a great majority of Americans suffer either from excessive debt or insufficient income, and sometimes both.

The situation of the American worker is thus bleak, and immigration dilutes the labour pool yet more, making it a buyer's market for employers and thus reducing workers' income all the more. Unskilled labourers are particularly imperilled by this phenomenon. It has been shown that, in the net aggregate, all of the new jobs of the Obama years went to immigrants, and yet for all of these new jobs, two new immigrants have emerged. Those states with the largest share of illegal immigrants also have the highest unemployment figures.

It should be apparent that we're crippling our economy, especially as it pertains to the middle and working classes, through largely unbridled immigration. We're severely disadvantaging our own citizens, often our very vulnerable citizens, in favour of largesse being given to those of of another land. If we take it as axiomatic that a political entity exists for the benefit of its citizens, then this political entity is not acting according to its form and design. It is like a father neglecting his own children in favour of a neighbour's.

I don't impugn those giving me sob stories about migrants not being able to enter, but I will also hold that there is a very just reason why they should not. Many looking at this issue unfortunately see only one side of the story, however. Until our middle- and working-class economy truly recovers from the globalization and labour dilution that has ravaged it, we simply can't afford to import more poverty. Right now, there's enough in this land that we need to deal with.

I wish the incoming Trump administration the best of success with this endeavour.

EDIT: I forgot even to address the matter of law, which I raised because there is often a lurking libertarian view among advocates of open borders that we should have no border laws. I often have to remind people that the situation they possibly envision is mere anarchy.

Edited January 7, 2017 by bardegaulois

[Peace]

2 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

Well, I believe that they are just, and that yet more restrictions would as well be just. Even policies designed to deter illegal immigration all the more - e.g., a border wall, military deployment on the US-Mexico border, streamlining immigration law proceedings, restricting welfare-state benefits to citizens and legal residents only - would not be any less just.

We must consider that one in six Americans is now living in poverty. One in five require some type of government assistance. One in four children benefit from food stamps. For all the vaunted "jobs created" by the Obama administration, a greater number have given up looking for work, and have thus fallen out of the official statistics. We haven't rate a lower number of adults employed since the 1980s. In the meantime, our median household income has shrunk by thousands over the past decade and a half, and a great majority of Americans suffer either from excessive debt or insufficient income, and sometimes both.

The situation of the American worker is thus bleak, and immigration dilutes the labour pool yet more, making it a buyer's market for employers and thus reducing workers' income all the more. Unskilled labourers are particularly imperilled by this phenomenon. It has been shown that, in the net aggregate, all of the new jobs of the Obama years went to immigrants, and yet for all of these new jobs, two new immigrants have emerged. Those states with the largest share of illegal immigrants also have the highest unemployment figures.

It should be apparent that we're crippling our economy, especially as it pertains to the middle and working classes, through largely unbridled immigration. We're severely disadvantaging our own citizens, often our very vulnerable citizens, in favour of largesse being given to those of of another land. If we take it as axiomatic that a political entity exists for the benefit of its citizens, then this political entity is not acting according to its form and design. It is like a father neglecting his own children in favour of a neighbour's.

I don't impugn those giving me sob stories about migrants not being able to enter, but I will also hold that there is a very just reason why they should not. Many looking at this issue unfortunately see only one side of the story, however. Until our middle- and working-class economy truly recovers from the globalization and labour dilution that has ravaged it, we simply can't afford to import more poverty. Right now, there's enough in this land that we need to deal with.

I wish the incoming Trump administration the best of success with this endeavour.

EDIT: I forgot even to address the matter of law, which I raised because there is often a lurking libertarian view among advocates of open borders that we should have no border laws. I often have to remind people that the situation they possibly envision is mere anarchy.

Well I am not sure that "importing poverty" is the right way to look at it. I think that this may be too short-sighted of a view. For most of the nation's history we had "open borders". The prosperity that we have today is to a large extent built upon the massive waves of poor immigrants that came to this country in the past, became contributing members of society, and worked their way up to a higher standard of living from generation to generation while continuing to contribute along the way. If people then took the same position of the nativists take today we would would be living in a very different (and likely far less prosperous) society than we have today. Immigration (and free markets in general) have proved to benefit a nation's economy over the long term.

And let's not be too bleak about the state of the USA. Most people who qualify as poor in the USA would be considered upper-middle class in Mexico or down-right wealthy in many 3rd world countries. The average poor family in the USA has air-conditioning, cable TV and an X-Box. It ain't like you see any of our people risking life and limb to cross the border over into Canada. . .People in other countries have it much, much worse than we do. People in many places don't even have clean water or decent food to put on their table. It's not really fair to denigrate their situations to the level of "sob stories". They are our human brothers and sisters and as a wealthy nation we have a moral obligation to accommodate them to the extent that we can. It's a real obligation that Catholics should take seriously.

But I think that you are right to be concerned about the short-term impact of immigration on low-skilled workers living in the USA today. Immigration does result in a short-term shift in income from low-skilled American workers to their employers, by means of the employers paying lower wages to immigrants who are willing to work at the lower wage. We have to take the legitimate concerns of struggling Americans into consideration as well.

Perhaps your solution of cutting off immigration makes sense if you assume that the economy is a zero-sum game. If there are only 8 slices of pie then I guess it makes sense to think "I am not going to allow your kids to sit at the table because my kids will not get to eat". I think this holds true in the short-term, but in reality immigration (and free markets in general) result in a much bigger pie for everyone.  Both your kids and my kids get to eat more pie. So I think that instead of looking at the situation as an "us v. them" sort of scenario, we should be striving for solutions that help both struggling Americans while at the same time satisfying our moral obligations to our poorer neighbors. That could come in a lot of different forms, such as by providing increased means for low-skilled workers in the US to develop new skills and work in other types of jobs that pay better and that are more meaningful.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Peace

[bardegaulois]

35 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well I am not sure that "importing poverty" is the right way to look at it. I think that this may be too short-sighted of a view. For most of the nation's history we had "open borders". The prosperity that we have today is to a large extent built upon the massive waves of poor immigrants that came to this country in the past, became contributing members of society, and worked their way up to a higher standard of living from generation to generation while continuing to contribute along the way. If people then took the same position of the nativists take today we would would be living in a very different (and likely far less prosperous) society than we have today. Immigration (and free markets in general) have proved to benefit a nation's economy over the long term.

And let's not be too bleak about the state of the USA. Most people who qualify as poor in the USA would be considered upper-middle class in Mexico or down-right wealthy in many 3rd world countries. The average poor family in the USA has air-conditioning, cable TV and an X-Box. It ain't like you see any of our people risking life and limb to cross the border over into Canada. . .People in other countries have it much, much worse than we do. People in many places don't even have clean water or decent food to put on their table. It's not really fair to denigrate their situations to the level of "sob stories". They are our human brothers and sisters and as a wealthy nation we have a moral obligation to accommodate them to the extent that we can. It's a real obligation that Catholics should take seriously.

But I think that you are right to be concerned about the short-term impact of immigration on low-skilled workers living in the USA today. Immigration does result in a short-term shift in income from low-skilled American workers to their employers, by means of the employers paying lower wages to immigrants who are willing to work at the lower wage. We have to take the legitimate concerns of struggling Americans into consideration as well.

Perhaps your solution of cutting off immigration makes sense if you assume that the economy is a zero-sum game. If there are only 8 slices of pie then I guess it makes sense to think "I am not going to allow your kids to sit at the table because my kids will not get to eat". I think this holds true in the short-term, but in reality immigration (and free markets in general) result in a much bigger pie for everyone.  Both your kids and my kids get to eat more pie. So I think that instead of looking at the situation as an "us v. them" sort of scenario, we should be striving for solutions that help both struggling Americans while at the same time satisfying our moral obligations to our poorer neighbors. That could come in a lot of different forms, such as by providing increased means for low-skilled workers in the US to develop new skills and work in other types of jobs that pay better and that are more meaningful.

You would have a point if there were the work to go around today. Industrial America needed armies of labourers for growth, and immigration amply provided for that and allowed many families (mine included) to move comfortably into the middle class. Due to offshoring and automation, there's not as much work to go around as there once was, and much of it is part-time or very menial. Must it be like so? Not at all! We need jobs, and in order to get jobs, we need growth - not the phony growth many talk about today, which affects only the wealthiest of investors, but growth that affects our entire society and that substantially raises that median household income I spoke about.

This issue is often framed as a zero-sum game because, for most, it is a zero-sum game, and it will remain so until more well-paying jobs are created and our nation goes back to work. Until that point, more immigration and more free trade deals are simply making our situation must worse, and must be constrained until our situation is stabilized. All of these are, of course, profoundly related. Once there's plenty of work to go around, then we can get back to welcoming in those skilled and qualified persons from around the world who wish to integrate into our society, and, yes, unskilled labour as well if there is indeed a want for unskilled labour. It's simply the American way. However, the more we forestall fixing our labour problems, the harder getting back to the system that was of such great benefit to my (and likely many of our) ancestors will become, and the more difficult the situation for the labourer in the US, whether native-born or immigrant, will become.

[Peace]

16 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

You would have a point if there were the work to go around today. Industrial America needed armies of labourers for growth, and immigration amply provided for that and allowed many families (mine included) to move comfortably into the middle class. Due to offshoring and automation, there's not as much work to go around as there once was, and much of it is part-time or very menial. Must it be like so? Not at all! We need jobs, and in order to get jobs, we need growth - not the phony growth many talk about today, which affects only the wealthiest of investors, but growth that affects our entire society and that substantially raises that median household income I spoke about.

This issue is often framed as a zero-sum game because, for most, it is a zero-sum game, and it will remain so until more well-paying jobs are created and our nation goes back to work. Until that point, more immigration and more free trade deals are simply making our situation must worse, and must be constrained until our situation is stabilized. All of these are, of course, profoundly related. Once there's plenty of work to go around, then we can get back to welcoming in those skilled and qualified persons from around the world who wish to integrate into our society, and, yes, unskilled labour as well if there is indeed a want for unskilled labour. It's simply the American way. However, the more we forestall fixing our labour problems, the harder getting back to the system that was of such great benefit to my (and likely many of our) ancestors will become, and the more difficult the situation for the labourer in the US, whether native-born or immigrant, will become.

The protectionst polices that you advocate for hinder job growth and wage increases for both citizens and immigrants. They cause inefficient allocation of resources and artificially prop up dying industries at the expense of new industries. Almost all economists agree that protectionist policies hurt the economy in the long term.

And your way is not the "American Way". This is a nation of immigrants. 99% of the people who live here have ancestors who immigrated from another country. Your way is exactly the opposite of what this country is about.

[Anomaly]

18 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

You would have a point if there were the work to go around today. Industrial America needed armies of labourers for growth, and immigration amply provided for that and allowed many families (mine included) to move comfortably into the middle class. Due to offshoring and automation, there's not as much work to go around as there once was, and much of it is part-time or very menial. Must it be like so? Not at all! We need jobs, and in order to get jobs, we need growth - not the phony growth many talk about today, which affects only the wealthiest of investors, but growth that affects our entire society and that substantially raises that median household income I spoke about.

This issue is often framed as a zero-sum game because, for most, it is a zero-sum game, and it will remain so until more well-paying jobs are created and our nation goes back to work. Until that point, more immigration and more free trade deals are simply making our situation must worse, and must be constrained until our situation is stabilized. All of these are, of course, profoundly related. Once there's plenty of work to go around, then we can get back to welcoming in those skilled and qualified persons from around the world who wish to integrate into our society, and, yes, unskilled labour as well if there is indeed a want for unskilled labour. It's simply the American way. However, the more we forestall fixing our labour problems, the harder getting back to the system that was of such great benefit to my (and likely many of our) ancestors will become, and the more difficult the situation for the labourer in the US, whether native-born or immigrant, will become.

In my opinion, the issue is that you, and most of media, as well as  elitists, have created this attitude that if you aren't sitting at a d so in AC, the job is menial and not worth having.   Too much of society wants to live like aristocracy with second class citizens build, maintain, clean, and serve  

For the last 15 years, there has been a dearth of work ethic in the construction industry.  I'm in a industry that does take a high school graduate, will teach them a trade, and they can make $50k within 5-10 years with health and retirement benefits.  We have to hire immigrants because most Americans believe that it's demeaning and a failure to work those jobs.  I have to compete with unscrupulous companies that hire illegals and save labor costs.  That drives down labor rates and product quality.    

Im all for a Wall, generous foreign worker Visas, strict labor law enforcement, very limited welfare benefits, and rewarding work ethic.  It's disheartening to repeatedly face minority youth interviewing for these jobs who believe that applying for or doing the job is a personal affront because if their race.  Society doesn't owe you food and shelter, it owes you the opportunity to earn your food and shelter and respect for everyone who earns it, no matter what they do.  

[bardegaulois]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

The protectionst polices that you advocate for hinder job growth and wage increases for both citizens and immigrants. They cause inefficient allocation of resources and artificially prop up dying industries at the expense of new industries. Almost all economists agree that protectionist policies hurt the economy in the long term.

And your way is not the "American Way". This is a nation of immigrants. 99% of the people who live here have ancestors who immigrated from another country. Your way is exactly the opposite of what this country is about.

You misrepresent my argument. To say that I'm in favour of temporary limitations on immigration and renegotiation of trade treaties does not mean that I oppose the concepts of immigration and international trade absolutely. Indeed, anyone against these is a fool, if you ask me. Nonetheless, the ways trade and immigration are managed now are not the only ways that they can be managed, and it's very feasible that there are better ways that will promote the broader prosperity and security of society. Neither the British Empire nor the United States grew to become the world's eminent powers on 18th-c. physiocratic doctrine, but the both adopted them eventually. Britain, of course, levelled out and then began declining, and the United States seems to be in that levelling period. Libertarians are often just as utopian as socialists in their view that free trade will save the world, but neglect consistently to understand that powers have interests, and that just because one nation drops barriers to their markets to international businesses, other powers are not obliged to do the same as they will see it more advantageous not to do so. We're not Luxembourg; we have a nation with a land mass extending over a continent, a population of 325 million, and very rich natural resources. We evidently have enough for ourselves as well as a surplus to send abroad, if only we can use all our resources appropriately.

As for immigration, when I mentioned "the American way, " I was referring to " welcoming in those skilled and qualified persons from around the world who wish to integrate into our society, and, yes, unskilled labour as well if there is indeed a want for unskilled labour." I thought that was evident; perhaps it wasn't.

[bardegaulois]

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

In my opinion, the issue is that you, and most of media, as well as  elitists, have created this attitude that if you aren't sitting at a d so in AC, the job is menial and not worth having.   Too much of society wants to live like aristocracy with second class citizens build, maintain, clean, and serve  

For the last 15 years, there has been a dearth of work ethic in the construction industry.  I'm in a industry that does take a high school graduate, will teach them a trade, and they can make $50k within 5-10 years with health and retirement benefits.  We have to hire immigrants because most Americans believe that it's demeaning and a failure to work those jobs.  I have to compete with unscrupulous companies that hire illegals and save labor costs.  That drives down labor rates and product quality.    

Im all for a Wall, generous foreign worker Visas, strict labor law enforcement, very limited welfare benefits, and rewarding work ethic.  It's disheartening to repeatedly face minority youth interviewing for these jobs who believe that applying for or doing the job is a personal affront because if their race.  Society doesn't owe you food and shelter, it owes you the opportunity to earn your food and shelter and respect for everyone who earns it, no matter what they do.  

I don't know where in the US you are, but in my Northeastern neck of the woods (where there are comparatively few illegal immigrants), the union hiring halls are generally quite full (during summers at least) with US citizens. Moreover, I'm not sure where you're getting that I'm referring only to white-collar professional jobs; in fact, I've primarily referring to industrial and construction work. Yes, our special little millennials are expecting work that promises rainbows and unicorns, but many of them are eventually going to look at their college degree in feminist dance therapy that cost them more than any piece of property they will ever own as the biggest mistake of their lives. And yes, there is an idle and shiftless urban proletariat who looks at anything less than the government buying them new Air Jordans every year as a major affront.

Beyond that, though, I tend to agree, but with the caveat that if American workers can be hired, they should. The case of Disney laying off many of their IT department in favour of Indian technicians, whom they got H1-B visas - and then, to add insult to injury, making the redundant workers' severance packages contingent upon their training their replacements - is simply unconscionable.

[Jubilate Deo]

Trump was not my first choice, nor my second. I liked Carly Fiorina initially, then Ted Cruz. Being in Canada right now, I couldn't vote anyway (I'm an American citizen), but what it boils down to for me is that I simply couldn't vote for Hillary in good conscience if I was able to write a name onto a ballot.

 

Trump was on EWTN praising the contributions of Catholics. Hillary said that religions need to change.

 

Trump has a pro-life stance and plans to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Hillary is pro-choice.

 

Trump has followers from all walks of life and the common people have rallied to his defense. Hillary is on record calling Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables."

 

I am bothered by what Trump has said and I think his election would not be nearly as feared or disliked if he would temper what he says more often. That said, for me, he was the only choice in the end.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Jubilate Deo

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, Jubilate Deo said:

Trump was not my first choice, nor my second. I liked Carly Fiorina initially, then Ted Cruz. Being in Canada right now, I couldn't vote anyway (I'm an American citizen), but what it boils down to for me is that I simply couldn't vote for Hillary in good conscience if I was able to write a name onto a ballot.

 

Trump was on EWTN praising the contributions of Catholics. Hillary said that religions need to change.

 

Trump has a pro-life stance and plans to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Hillary is pro-choice.

 

Trump has followers from all walks of life and the common people have rallied to his defense. Hillary is on record calling Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables."

 

I am bothered by what Trump has said and I think his election would not be nearly as feared or disliked if he would temper what he says more often. That said, for me, he was the only choice in the end.

Jubilate, if an American citizen, you could still vote while living in Canada. Catherine (A poster here) does.  Thoughtful participation in politics by more people helps make the representation democratic system work better. 

Trump does say clumsy things, but too many people are committed to fanning flames of offenses and outrage to a ridiculous level that only creates polarization. Hopefully saner minds will prevail and we'll find cooperative and constructive compromise. 

[CatherineM]

You vote in the county if your last residence. They email me my ballot and I can mail or fax it back. Mailing ensures secrecy, faxing doesn't. 

[Anomaly]

2 hours ago, CatherineM said:

You vote in the county if your last residence. They email me my ballot and I can mail or fax it back. Mailing ensures secrecy, faxing doesn't. 

I love Florida's mail in voting system and Hillsborough County's two week early poll station voting system. I hadn't heard of faxing votes.  Is that for a Pinellas voter and do you get ballots automatically if only local County and/or City races?