Usa Thread

[Flashermac]

... or more likely a Member of Congres.

 

[Steve]

LOL...but on balance, no one can run for Congress and win on an open border platform. No one in Congress is against border security. The debate may be what kind. Yes, there are some people who may want it but those are always anarchists usually. The real immigratin issues are 

1. What happens to illegals once they are in America. The safe haven view vs the use ICE to send all of them back view.

2. Can illegals have a path to citizenship. Some say never, some say yes, under certain conditions (such as DACA). 

3. Who gets in. The current administration has used coded speech to say they want to go back to the 1800s where it was almost always Europeans (with the exception of the Chinese when the railroad was being built across the country and even then they didn't allow Chinese women to emigrate to America). The term 'chain migration' has changed from 'famly unification' to a bad thing renaming it as 'chain migration'. Historically we have always let siblings, parents or children of legal immigrants or what was easier, naturalized citizens, come to America. Being against it now is new. It hasn't been that way pre 2016. Many Americans who have been here for generations got into America through "chain migration/family unification'. I guess there could be an argument pro or against but it's a new issue. There isn't empirical evidence to suggest they have a higher crime rate and their employment levels are generally higher and they don't use social welfare becaue they already have a family safety net upon arrival. There seems to be other 'motives' against it. You all can make your own assumptions. 

Open borders was never an issue. There has been a change in Black media about immigration which actually aligns with Trump in some ways. Some of my friends on thier social media sendme links, etc, (everyone does on their timelines) and the current talking point is immigration has NEVER been good for African Americans socio-economically which has not been an issue before. It's a generaltional viewpoint. The older civil rights generation have fought for immigration along with liberals but the younger Blacks now are against it but for different reasons the Trump administration has. Talk about strange bedfellows...lol. 

[Flashermac]

I think what has caused the current change was the Mexican women who would slip across the border nearly 9 months pregnant, and then give birth to the child in the US. The kid thus became a US citizen by birth. As a result, the rest of the family could come over legally. Still, I despite all the publicity over that, I don't think there was all that much going on. But right now Mexico is coming unglued, with drug gangs taking over cities and provinces, and fighting wars with each other that make 1920s and '30s Chicago seem like a kids' playground. I'd flee from today's Mexico too, and it's about time the Mexican government did something to clean up its own country so that so many wouldn't feel the need to leave it.

[Steve]

Actually, Mexican women have been doing that (coming over pregnant) for decades. The only change in that is that it's now spread to other countries. There are clinics set up in Chinese populated areas of Los Angeles specifically for upper middle class, pregnant Chinese women to have a baby. They fly over pregnant but not showing much, first trimester and overstay their tourist visa, have the baby and go back. This way the child is guaranteed to be able to come to America for univeristy or work. That's been going on in significant numbers for well over a decade. The same to varying degrees of other countries. 

It's now the other central American women doing the birthplace citizenship thing. It's been said that pretty much every Mexican native has a relative in America somewhere. So, its not as prevalent to do that now for Mexican women. There is no need. Remittances, are now on par with oil and tourism for revenues for Mexico. In fact, NET MEXICANS are leaving America than coming in. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/   NAFTA has brought 100s of thousands of jobs to Mexico.  The caravan is partial proof that the illegal migration is now south of Mexico. Guatemalans, Hondurans, etc. 

And the Mexican gangs are American born Mexicans. While there are some Mexican born illegals involved in organized criminal activity, anyone who has some knowledge of California prisons know that the LA Mexican gangs are a separate entity than the illegal Mexicans in the prisons. They don't socialize and do not see themselves as the same. Simple logic dictates that an illegal alien Mexican is not going to be walking the street displaying his tattoos and bandanas for the simple fact any cop can pick him up and have him deported. Not the same issue with an American born Mexican gang member. Illegals operate in the shadows. 

If we want to be fair and balanced, there is very little said about the Russian mafia, many are on overstayed visas. There is a strong case to be made for limiting immigration from Russia, the Balkans, and such if we are using criminal activity as a standard. Eastern european criminal organizations are big on the east coast of America with the Russians in particular taking over the types of crime the traditional Italian mafia had (gambling, loan sharking, etc.) and their families (Italian) decimated from RICO statute prosecutions. The Russians have added human trafficking and drugs (which was officially banned by the Italian mafia but not always adhered to). We can throw the Chinese in there as well if we want to be accurate. 

The face of immigration and crime is latino but it's not accurate. 

 

 

[Coss]

Anchor babies are a phenomenon all over the world, we get 'em here in NZ and the Straya does too. Though I think that the Lao women who choose to give birth in Thailand, do so more out of a desire for better medical treatment, than Thai citizenship for little Chantavongsa.

 

[Steve]

I've repeated this a few times but it can't be overstated enough just how much more contention there was regarding the European immigrants of the mid to late 1800s. Today is noting in comparison. For a start there were no opposition side in the 1800s. NOBODY wanted them but the government kept allowing them in. The borders and the sea lanes nad ports of entry were open in those days. There wasn't this notion of people can't come in. Any country, pretty much, you made it to the port you were in. The ONLY reasons why we started keeping records and such was because of the changing mood and the first laws limiting people from specific countries. The second reason was for health purproses. Disease was rampant. Whole neighborhodds were pretty much wiped out for rubella, german measles, small pox, etc, because you had all these different groups who never intermingled and they didn't have the antibodies to be immune from each other diseases. For the first time, doctors were placed at port at entries like Ellis Island. 

There was a far, far stronger case to keep Eurpean immigrants out of the country 150 years ago IF we are using today's standards. The concept of a border was only ipmortant in wars. People generally moved freely between countries. 

[Flashermac]

I don't think a passport was even needed to travel until in the late 1800s. You just came and went, no visas either. The big hang up in the 19th century was that so many Catholics were coming in - mainly Irish, Germans, and Italians. America had been a largely protestant country before that and many didn't take well to the arrival of Catholic foreigners.

[Coss]

It turns out, that Trump and Kushner are, as Dumb as I thought, or bricks, or as thick as two short planks, if you will....

~

Trump and Jared Kushner thought firing Michael Flynn would end the "Russia thing," according to Chris Christie's forthcoming book, "Let Me Finish."

Christie says Trump told him during a lunch, with Kushner and Christie's wife that, "This Russia thing is all over now, because I fired Flynn."

Christie says he tried to point out that, "this Russia thing is far from over," but Trump shot back: "What do you mean? Flynn met with the Russians. That was the problem. I fired Flynn. It’s over."

Then Kushner added, "That’s right, firing Flynn ends the whole Russia thing."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/us/politics/chris-christie-book-trump.html

[cavanami]

From the land of...

PG&E files for bankruptcy as California wildfire liabilities loom

PG&E Corp, owner of the largest U.S. power utility, filed for bankruptcy protection on Tuesday in anticipation of liabilities in excess of $30 billion from the deadliest wildfires in California's history.

PG&E, which provides electricity and natural gas to 16 million customers in northern and central California and employs 24,000 people, vowed to keep the lights on and continue with critical investments it said were needed in its system's safety and maintenance.

"The power and gas will stay on ... We are not 'going out of business,' and there will be no disruption in the services you expect from us," interim Chief Executive John Simon said in a letter to customers.

PG&E faced no immediate cash crunch. Its decision to file for bankruptcy was driven by its assessment of upcoming legal liabilities. While state investigators cleared PG&E this month of liability in one of several 2017 wildfires in California's wine country, the company still may be found liable for a fire that killed at least 86 people in Northern California in November.

The San Francisco-based company faces lawsuits from owners of homes and businesses that burned during that and other fires. Filing for bankruptcy temporarily shields PG&E from these claims, allowing it to negotiate settlements in bankruptcy court.

PG&E's bankruptcy attracted criticism from some California politicians, shareholders and wildfire victim advocates. California Senate President Toni Atkins called PG&E's decision disappointing and said the bankruptcy was not the optimum solution for Californians...

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/pg-e-corp-files-chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection-082001142--finance.html

 

[cavanami]

...and Mueller continues to have a nothing burger....

Roger Stone's not guilty plea shows collapse of Russian collusion narrative

The main takeaway from informal presidential adviser Roger Stone’s arraignment Tuesday is that the Russian collusion narrative has collapsed. If there were anything there, we’d know about it by now.

Stone was hauled in to federal court Friday morning after a theatrical, televised arrest that should be the subject of a Justice Department investigation or congressional inquiry. Why the excessive threat of force? Though CNN denies it, many still wonder whether the network was tipped off. The extreme intimidation tactic might have been intended to send a message, but it only tended to confirm the biases of those who see special counsel Robert Mueller's entire effort as a rogue operation...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/roger-stone-apos-not-guilty-203253756.html