dont ever move to a small town!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
10,103
Location
Pacific N.W.
......... and time will prove you wrong on this immigration invasion. So dig up all of your current information and toss it about like confetti. Because time will show that millions of undocumented people pouring into the country in a short time is not a good thing no matter how much you want to prove it is.

They don't even need a wooden horse.

Image 10-4-23 at 10.24 AM.jpg


Men bring their women and children with them when they intend to peacefully settle. They leave them at home when they intend to conquer.
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
Men bring their women and children with them when they intend to peacefully settle. They leave them at home when they intend to conquer.
Guess we're talking immigration now. OK.

The WHAT:
  1. DEMAND
    1. The US economy has a significant need for labor
    2. This labor is disproportionately performed by immigrants
  2. SUPPLY
    1. The economies of Central America (and to a lesser degree South America) are mediocre relative to the US economy
    2. A large number of immigrants seek opportunities elsewhere
    3. These immigrants are not representative of the best in their societies
The WHY as I see it.
  1. DEMAND
    1. The need for labor is self-evident: there's always a need for people in the trades, landscaping, custodial work, food service, manufacturing, agriculture, food processing, retail, etc.
    2. The low citizen participation in the labor economy is largely because it's not seen as desirable
      1. White-collar work has been seen as the path to success for 4 generations now
      2. Coincident with the prior, working conditions in labor are perceived to be - or observably - declining: rates of pay, safety, stability, long-term viability of a given niche, etc
  2. SUPPLY
    1. This is somewhat self-evident: lower per-capita GDP not offset by favorable local purchasing power, less overall regularity in the economy, fewer opportunities
    2. Also self-evident per the topic at hand
    3. Coincident with 1, the top ~quartiles can generally secure satisfactory work. The lower ~quartile cannot and immigration to other countries - often at great risk - to perform scut work is the better option.
Some observations as a resident of a border state:
  • Under the present legal/economic status quo, illegal immigrants are a fact of life. No plausible amount of additional border security, INS raids, court cases against employers, CBP policy tweaks, nor any of the usual 'solutions' will meaningfully move the numbers.
  • Said immigrants are overwhelmingly here to work because living in squalor relative to US citizens and permanent residents is better than where they came from
  • Many immigrants set down roots here but a similar quantity seem to be more connected to their families back home and are here to support them through remittances. The balance might change if they could travel freely or live here above board, but I don't expect it would change immensely.
EDIT: To the extent I have any sort of prescription for the situation:
  • The past several decades of history is evidence that interdicting supply is at best ineffectual
  • Solutions that have a chance of making a difference must address fundamentally change the demand situation
  • An effectual change will bring economic disruption
 
Last edited:

Lips

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,426
Location
Louisiana - USA
Lead FACT checker...

OIP.jpg



Announced today:
The Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction on Wednesday, marking the administration's first use of a sweeping executive power employed often during the Trump presidency.

"There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas," Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, stated in the notice.

Bill Clinton thru them under the buss two days ago so they had to move... Getting crushed in the polls...

-----------------

My 'Opinion' is illegal immigration is primarily about ensconcing a democrat majority, over time, funded by the taxpayer / treasury / debt.

The national chamber of commerce and others are pushing immigration of any kind because of the labor shortages. No problem, set the rules...

There are plenty of solutions for all the issues of immigration and jobs. The primary reason above gets in the way every time!

PITHY = Comment or piece of writing is short, direct, and full of meaning.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,622
Location
NYC
If I had the room and money, I'd buy myself a subway train. That would be a cool thing to have. Probably no way to actually run it, even if I had space on my property for a track. These things require north of half a megawatt per car while accelerating. Cruising is a little better, but we're probably still talking 50 to 100kW per car.
It would be cramped. But I'd love to recreate Artyum's "apartment" from the Metro series of video games. It's literally one section of a Russian subway train car. Just enough room to sit and eat, and sleep. With a bit of storage space. If I get one of those pen spy cameras, I could film an ASMR video for my other YouTube channel in First Person.

Everyone would think it's a Green-Screen.... Until I picked up a guitar from the background. (Though if I'm being completely honest, I just want it for myself.) Besides, already filmed a Metro: Last Light role-play on my ASMR channel months ago with all the right props. You can get all of his accessories off of various Etsy shops. Heck, even his watch from the 2nd Metro game. But no one is going to try to recreate his subway home in the hopes that a fan will buy it.
 

Monocrom

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
19,622
Location
NYC
As far as Immigration goes, I'll only say this....
Mexico is a poverty-racked 3rd World country.
Forget the border towns just south of San Diego.
Those enjoy tourist cash in-flow from Americans.
Some of whom literally cross into Mexico on foot, for lunch.
Not joking! It's common. Those towns are doing well.
Go deeper, and you suddenly realize why influx is huge!
Not just huge, but out of control into America.
Some say we should invade Mexico and take it over!
Go ahead.... The locals will literally Thank You for doing so.
Most of Mexico would be financially much better off!
Even as just a U.S. territory, they'd enjoy real financial gains.
Is it even "Conquering," when the locals are happy that you invaded?
Only thing they're upset about is that you didn't do it decades sooner!
 

JoeJoe

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Sep 15, 2023
Messages
45
Location
Florida
And the best way of deterring the problem I'm talking about is to confiscate the vehicles, preferably before they're sold to these miscreants. Or failing that, the police can rely on tips as to where the owners store these vehicles, and conduct a raid. They actually do that somewhat regularly, but apparently not often enough.

As others have mentioned, many police departments have been instructed not to give chase. All it takes is one death or serious injury of a bystander to make a major public relations nightmare.


It means enforcing a law to the point it's virtually impossible to violate it. Most of the time the police react to crimes, not prevent them. There isn't enough manpower to do the latter.

It's illegal to own or carry a gun in NYC, so no I don't carry one. I usually don't carry a torch either, although I guess my bike headlights qualify when I'm out riding. I'm fine with whatever self-defense measures are legal where I live. If we ever legalized firearms, maybe I'd buy a few for home defense. Not sure I'd want the legal liability associated with carrying one.

No, parts of NYC are a crime cesspool now. I feel perfectly comfortable walking in my neighborhood at 2 AM. Don't believe all the garbage you hear on the news.

As for Giuliani, my summation of him was first term great, second term not so great. First term he had the police crack down on a lot of minor crimes which were often gateways to worse crimes. If someone got away mugging people, or shoplifting, why not graduate to auto theft or rape next? So by nipping these people in the bud, the police took a lot of criminals off the streets before they became major felons. Second term? That's where he lost a lot of support. He started going after BS stuff like having a beer on your stoop (i.e. open container law), being in parks after dark, jaywalking, sidewalk cycling, etc. Basically a lot of people who had never been in trouble with the law were getting tickets for stuff they often didn't even know was illegal. These people weren't going to become hardened criminals if they weren't ticketed for these things. This overpolicing is responsible in part for policies which now handcuff the police from doing their jobs, even when it's warranted. Bottom line, Giuliani should have stuck to going after pickpockets, aggressive panhandlers, squeegee men, shoplifters, etc. There he had wide support, plus getting these people off the streets actually reduced more serious crimes.
Too bad. A leftist anti police activist in NY was stabbed to death at 4 am recently buy a black male at large, just a few days ago. He preached your sermon and got knifed to death. Approached the guy in NY and got killed. The hands off, let all do what they want is chaos. Let all off without chase, is chaos. As in any conflict, there will always be issues with friendly chase, but to keep respect for law, police and military, it is the correct thing to do. I will no longer respond to a lost cause who has more clout on this form for flashlights, LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top