Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tyyr wrote:
Frankly I think the whole quota system and the way we handle immigration is ridiculous.

I have no problem with quotas, its the red tape that follows them.

Otherwise, high-five for rare agreement.

If helgrenze's numbers are accurate, and from what I know they look to be pretty decent we only allow 511,000 people to legally immigrate every year. For a country of immigrants with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." on the doormat it seems like a mixed message. To me if someone wants to be an American our answer should be, "Sure! Come on, the more the merrier," not, "Hmmm, sorry. We've let too many of you foreigners in this year already. if the death squads don't get you feel free to try again next year." The whole idea that we turn away people who want to become citizens seems un-American to me, or at least to my rosey eyed interpretation of what America should be about.

Tyyr wrote:If helgrenze's numbers are accurate, and from what I know they look to be pretty decent we only allow 511,000 people to legally immigrate every year. For a country of immigrants with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." on the doormat it seems like a mixed message. To me if someone wants to be an American our answer should be, "Sure! Come on, the more the merrier," not, "Hmmm, sorry. We've let too many of you foreigners in this year already. if the death squads don't get you feel free to try again next year." The whole idea that we turn away people who want to become citizens seems un-American to me, or at least to my rosey eyed interpretation of what America should be about.

I found higher numbers than that and it doesn't include amnesties. Frankly with 1MM+ coming in illegally a year now, that number is almost irrelevant.

Well what were the numbers you found?

The main reason we have illegal immigrants is because of what a pain in the ass the immigration system is. With a less ridiculous system they could come through legally and become tax paying citizens.

Tyyr wrote:Well what were the numbers you found?

The main reason we have illegal immigrants is because of what a pain in the ass the immigration system is. With a less ridiculous system they could come through legally and become tax paying citizens.

700,000 plus amnesties.

Ok, that's still a pittance unless we're granting a few million amnesties a year.

The entire electoral college system is messed up in the first place. One man =/= one vote, because 2 senators speak for everyone in California (all gazillion of them), and 2 senators speak with equal power for everyone in Wyoming (all 5 of them). Districting just makes it worse. I don't understand who is in charge of drawing these lines on maps to get the perfect 51% in all the well populated areas while not caring about the 0% in unpopulated areas. There must be some sort of committee (there's a committee for everything from budgets to coffee filters somewhere in congress) who watches out for blatant abuses of the destricting lines... oh wait... ANY shifting of the lines is abusive isn't it?

Tyyr wrote:Ok, that's still a pittance unless we're granting a few million amnesties a year.

A pittance compared to who?

Noticed the 9.8% unemployment?

Districting is handled at the state level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:A pittance compared to who?

Noticed the 9.8% unemployment?

Compared to the number who want to enter. I've noticed the unemployment. I have my own doubts about whether or not immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are stealing jobs that anyone currently here is seeking.

Tyyr wrote:Districting is handled at the state level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:A pittance compared to who?

Noticed the 9.8% unemployment?

Compared to the number who want to enter. I've noticed the unemployment. I have my own doubts about whether or not immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are stealing jobs that anyone currently here is seeking.

I didn't say immigrants were stealing jobs. I said we have 9.8% unemployment. I said there aren't jobs to steal. Additional immigrants means additional unemployment.

WarOne wrote:Thanks to the efforts of our Founding Fathers who had no advanced warning of political parties, ethnicity, or just plain selfishness in a desperate grab to keep power, the 2010 Census is now complete.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/domestic-politics/the-numbers-game-the-2010-census-4611

Go ahead and Google Census with your state for all the news related to how your state(s) may end up being "losers" in the Congressional sense what with certain states dominated by a political party and the consequences of having district lines redrawn to keep votes swingin' that way, or states like NY and Ohio that will lose representatives and such.

Good times...good times...

whut? The party overseeing the census numbers is the one expected to lose votes. Proportional representation doesn't work if we don't change voting power to reflect the population.

If this is about gerrymandering then nothing new to report but do you have something against the census?

Scrabb wrote:whut? The party overseeing the census numbers is the one expected to lose votes. Proportional representation doesn't work if we don't change voting power to reflect the population.

If this is about gerrymandering then nothing new to report but do you have something against the census?

You didn't get my sardonic demeanor regarding the whole census business.

To wit: Media making big deal of it.

Nothing new is really happening.

THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

Blame lack of hindsight.

Frazzled wrote:
I didn't say immigrants were stealing jobs. I said we have 9.8% unemployment. I said there aren't jobs to steal. Additional immigrants means additional unemployment.

No, not really. Employment doesn't work that way because its also contingent upon demand. It is possible to allow any given number of immigrants in without materially affecting employment, in the long term, because said immigrants will want to eat food, live in shelters, and generally participate in the economy; meaning that they will create a need for work by their very presence.

In other words, the relationship is more complex than you're making it seem, but then that is essentially your thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
I found higher numbers than that and it doesn't include amnesties. Frankly with 1MM+ coming in illegally a year now, that number is almost irrelevant.

Of course its relevant. As has been argued repeatedly, the absence of legal opportunities for immigration tends to drive the desire to immigrate illegally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:If helgrenze's numbers are accurate, and from what I know they look to be pretty decent we only allow 511,000 people to legally immigrate every year. For a country of immigrants with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free..." on the doormat it seems like a mixed message. To me if someone wants to be an American our answer should be, "Sure! Come on, the more the merrier," not, "Hmmm, sorry. We've let too many of you foreigners in this year already. if the death squads don't get you feel free to try again next year." The whole idea that we turn away people who want to become citizens seems un-American to me, or at least to my rosey eyed interpretation of what America should be about.

Its not really a mixed message. Simply because we, at one time, took in the huddled masses it does not follow that we do so currently.

I will, however, agree that annual quotas are a bit ridiculous, and nothing more than artifact of bureaucratic underfunding. We should be using monthly, weekly, or daily quotas.

Tyyr wrote:Districting is handled at the state level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:A pittance compared to who?

Noticed the 9.8% unemployment?

Compared to the number who want to enter. I've noticed the unemployment. I have my own doubts about whether or not immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are stealing jobs that anyone currently here is seeking.

As someone living in California, who is unemployed I will say that from what I have seen the unemployment hits everyone. Now as far as day labor goes....well I'd be out doing it right now if I spoke spanish. But I don't, so I can't.

I've applied for probably 200 positions in the last 3 months and don't particularly feel that "illegals" are competing with me for social service, public outreach, or non-profit sector jobs. Auto techs, well small shops perhaps but not the large dealerships. I base this comment on the fact that I worked for Volvo North America out here for 2 years as a full time tech.

<shrug> Its rough all around.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Districting is handled at the state level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:A pittance compared to who?

Noticed the 9.8% unemployment?

Compared to the number who want to enter. I've noticed the unemployment. I have my own doubts about whether or not immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are stealing jobs that anyone currently here is seeking.

I didn't say immigrants were stealing jobs. I said we have 9.8% unemployment. I said there aren't jobs to steal. Additional immigrants means additional unemployment.

There is also the converse that opening the immigration policy up a bit will generate a plethora of small business owners provided the federal programs to assist small business start up don't go the way of the dinosaur. The country has been built on the backs of immigrant labor, we need to continue that if we want to stay viable.

Frazzled wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Well what were the numbers you found?

The main reason we have illegal immigrants is because of what a pain in the ass the immigration system is. With a less ridiculous system they could come through legally and become tax paying citizens.

700,000 plus amnesties.

Site source please.

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Those are the only two countries I can find actual hard number limiting immigrants.

In France, immigrants are required to speak french, prove they can support themselves and take a DNA test.

In Japan, everyone entering the country is fingerprinted.

Of course this is all net info..... any input fromthose that have actually emmigrated to a country other than the US may have more info.

In Australia the total immigration each year is capped at around 200,000 for economic immigrants, with around 12,000 more coming in as refugees.

We freak out about this as much as the US does, possibly more, as it was one of the biggest issues in the last election. Which is odd, because we don't have anywhere near the issue that you do.

It's arguably one of the biggest issue raised at election times. The ironic thing is that the fear is aimed mostly at 'boat people' coming across from Indonesia which bring in only a fraction of the current illegal immigrants, compared to people being flown in (and even then it's not a critical problem). The whole issue is far too overblown, it's in the news every other day. Second only to the ashes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!

THEY TUK ER JUBS!

Unemployment rate is nowhere near an adequate approximation of actual number of people without jobs, which is far greater. The numbers for unemployment rate are based on only the people who qualify for recieving benefits for it. Nor does it take into account the number of people who are technically speaking 'employed' but on an hourly wage that fluctuates based on business. The last crappy restaurant job I worked had me working 39 hour weeks during busy season (if I hit 40 they would have to pay me health insurance, so they cut an hour off. Cheapass bastards), and when things got slow, I would go for a month or two of getting about 15 hours a week. This is not considered 'unemployed', just having a gakky job - which actually pays less than sitting around collecting a check for doing nothing. I know an old neighbor of mine who would work for 6 months, get himself fired, and sit around for 6 months collecting unemployment. He said he could make more money that way than he could getting reduced hours every so often based on how business was doing. I don't blame him at all. I have no problem with unemployment insurance, but it is a kind of messed up system of determinine who qualifies and who doesnt (for example, you can't claim unemployment if you quit your job, only if you are fired... that's a great incentive to work hard, huh?)

Guitardian wrote:Unemployment rate is nowhere near an adequate approximation of actual number of people without jobs, which is far greater. The numbers for unemployment rate are based on only the people who qualify for recieving benefits for it. Nor does it take into account the number of people who are technically speaking 'employed' but on an hourly wage that fluctuates based on business. The last crappy restaurant job I worked had me working 39 hour weeks during busy season (if I hit 40 they would have to pay me health insurance, so they cut an hour off. Cheapass bastards), and when things got slow, I would go for a month or two of getting about 15 hours a week. This is not considered 'unemployed', just having a gakky job - which actually pays less than sitting around collecting a check for doing nothing. I know an old neighbor of mine who would work for 6 months, get himself fired, and sit around for 6 months collecting unemployment. He said he could make more money that way than he could getting reduced hours every so often based on how business was doing. I don't blame him at all. I have no problem with unemployment insurance, but it is a kind of messed up system of determinine who qualifies and who doesnt (for example, you can't claim unemployment if you quit your job, only if you are fired... that's a great incentive to work hard, huh?)

Depends on the state in question. In Minnesota you had better have a goddamn good reason to quit your job. When you file for UI payments you are asked why you are unemployed. They (the MUA) checks into it for validity. If you were "fired", good luck. Odds are good you won't get jack squat. If you quit they'll look into seeing why you quit. If they think you had a good reason you get UI, if not too bad, do not pass "GO", do not collect $200. If your work is seasonal or you were hired through a temp agency than you can collect UI benefits BUT unlike other types of government assistance, ie welfare and food stamps, there are lots of stipulations to being able to maintain benefits. Actively seeking work being one of them (by active I mean you must apply for jobs, send in resumes and be able to show proof of doing those things if asked to present proof).

So, your friend getting himself fired every 6 months really reflects poorly on the state you live in as it's obvious your state is FAR too lenient with UI handouts. In MN you need to pray to God, run 15 laps around the college with a keg strapped to your back and doing it all on one leg and maybe, just maybe you'll get UI benefits and payments. Not to mention UI doesn't pay jack gak either.