Abbott is trying to kill or injure illegal immigrants coming to Texas

I stopped reading at this point.

Don't lie about what I'm saying.

 

Your ancestors passed a test to gain entry? Not sure that ever happened. Please tell me the story.

 

You really are a sick person.

 

Blah blah blah. Welfare queen argument? Jesus.

 

It might make things better (and it might not, depending on the details), but it certainly won't fix the problem.

And although I think this is too far, we need to take SOME measures to deter people from making the journey. Promising them a warm bed, a job, and cash won't exactly deter them from coming. It'll just make elitist lefties in gated communities feel better about themselves while border communities foot the bill.

 

You don't see any problem with that?

 

I don’t think you end food stamps or stop allowing asylum because white guys in offices think welfare abuse is a meaningful issue. Abuse of welfare, food stamps, and SS is minuscule and usually an organized business grift vs individuals or “welfare queens”.

No one is living life large off the government. No one except the wealthy corporation owners that is.

 

No the sick people are those who look at what happened and shrug, 'just the cost of our freedoms I guess', or 'if that is what has to happen to stop the invasion, then that is what has to happen to stop the invasion'. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Those are the sick people.

 

The only thing that has ever stopped people from coming here are better economic conditions back home, like Mexico from 2012 through the pandemic. Or bad conditions here domestically, like the last recession or the pandemic. And the latter are temporary. The immigrants eventually start coming again. So unless we can fix all of C. and S. America, there will be a supply of immigrants.

Everything else we have tried to deter people from coming have been abject failures. And we are promising them nothing other than a chance to work and make a living. If we charged $5/week for a guest worker program, the current 8 million undocumented workforce would generate over $2 billion in tax revenues we could use to ensure those on a guest worker visa are actually gainfully employed.

We also need to look dynamically at the costs/revenues of immigrants. Even if the 0 generation of immigrants cost us a little more in taxes, their kids tend to be tax positive. The CATO Institute estimated DREAMers would generate $2.8 billion in federal tax and $705 million in state/local tax revenues over a decade. Even if the 0 generation cost more, we can consider them loss leaders that lead to increased revenues over time.

There's also the inflationary issue of labor which like any commodity sees rising prices when supply is short. We've seen plenty of inflation recently, partly because Trump's policies cut about 1 million in legal immigrants from coming into this country. And the pandemic shut the border temporarily. But if we increase immigration, we could potentially ease inflation.

There's no perfect solution. The problem is way too complex. But instituting a guest worker program that better allows supply of labor to meet demand while charging for the guest worker visa will absolutely make things better. It would allow the immigrants to come in legally, and not need to dangerously cross rivers or the desert, which is dangerous. It would also allow us to vet those who want a visa before we allow them into the country. We'll also be able to generate tax revenues from the Visa payments and put more kids in our schools, who when they graduate, will be as successful as the current crop of DREAMers.

Much better than spending more money on prevention tactics that is akin to flushing money down the toilet. What's worked, long term, in preventing undocumented immigrants from entering the country? Anything?

 

It's not just about people "abusing" the system. A lot of these people are just trying their best, but it's not about "trying your best." It's about results. And if you're taking in more than you're giving, you're straining the system. It's that simple. The US is a wealthy country, but not wealthy enough to pay off the poverty of Central and South America.

Without "wealthy corporation owners," we couldn't fund half of the country. There's this Democratic myth that the wealthy don't pay taxes. Some absolutely exploit the system, just like every other group, but as a whole, they pay a much greater share of the taxes than any other income group, despite accounting for much less people.

 

In that case, I guess we should stop trying. Oh well. Tough marbles for the folks in La Joya.

 

They pay taxes for sure, and taxing the rich isn't a panacea by any means.

Having said that, I think when people say the rich can and should pay more, they're typically referring to wealth, capital gains, and/or inheritance as opposed to ordinary income. Even with income, I think the top marginal rate starts at about $500,000. So the top marginal rate is the same for someone making half a million in income as the person making ten million. That's without getting into things like the cap on FICA taxes, tax shelters, or other tax reduction/avoidance techniques - which get more complicated.

 

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were making a case for American Imperialism.

We can't have it all folks. We can't have the welfare state, allow everyone who crosses the border to stay here, do nothing to stop them, and stay out of the business of other countries even when they're pushing huge swaths of immigrants here.

The preferred option is securing the border and controlling who comes in. I've come around on some degree of some welfare programs just because of how inexpensive some are in the grand scheme of government spending, and how materialistic and selfish we are as a culture, but such a sentiment has its limits.

 

I think that says more about how few people are in that $10 million and up group than anything.

When Bernie Sanders is talking about the 1%, he's talking about around $650,000 in HOUSEHOLD income, which is basically just two married doctors in San Francisco who don't even necessarily run their own practice.

I also think a lot of issues come up when taxing anything that isn't realized because that number changes year-to-year. It's like taxing someone based on the amount of money they put in the pot at a poker game before the game is over. They might come out rich, they might come out broke, who the Hell knows.

 

How do you secure the border? What's been successful in the past? Anything?

An expanded guest worker program would significantly help control who comes in. The vast majority of crossers come looking for work to make a better life for themselves. If they could come in legally and go through a vetting process, we would eliminate those with a criminal past, and better know who is here at any given time.

And I'm not making the case for American Imperialism. Just stating facts. As long as there are impoverished countries in the Western hemisphere, and America is seen as the land of opportunity, immigrants will come. And our attempts to stop them have been mostly giant money wastes.

 

Some measures have been more successful than others in the past. Catch and release only so the people crossing don't show up on their court date is a much worse answer.

Physical barriers (like a wall, or barbed wire fence) in areas with plenty of crossings probably wouldn't hurt. Is it a perfect solution? No. Nothing is. But anything that allows the feds to control the situation in as a humane and dignified manner as possible, is all you can do.

In our political discourse, we tend to pretend that any efforts to deter border crossings are inhumane and undignified and any efforts to make them easier are motivated by politics and are cumbersome. When the reality is that the optimal solution that furthers our values and our interests is somewhere in the middle. But no answer is easy, and all of them have winners and losers where some of the losers are incredibly sympathetic people.

 

Did your ancestors apply online to come to the US?

 

Nothing like posting a distorted pic from 30 years ago to try and make a point about current events. Better luck next time

 

And unless we rid ourselves of said weapons, that's a tight rope we'll have to continue to walk. How long can a tight rope be walked? There is certainly one clear answer: not forever.

 

That is such weak sauce. He was responding to a post that made a historical claim, and he responded appropriately.

Does that look like being treated as heroes to you?