**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

A) You're guessing, man.
B) Even if you're right, so what?
(see above point about American justice and tell me how this doesn't apply, here.)

It's a reason to tighten immigration standards.

What about taking measures to maximize importation of allies?

Great idea. Tightening immigration standards from regions and demos that are less prone to being allies does that.

A) Source, please.
W/o data to back this up, you are only supporting the impression that you are claiming the ability to identify an innocent from a guilty based on their age and gender.

B) Are you saying your position on immigration reform that we should only admit women and children?

I feel confident that I still don't see where you're coming from on this one.

Women and children on the lifeboat first. That such a large proportion of these "refugees" being able-bodied men (one source I saw a while back was that it is a very sizable majority) tells us that something is not right.

Cool.

Why doesn't this temper your stance on the prior points.

Working with bad elements you're stuck with doesn't mean it's a good idea to invite bad elements you're not stuck with.

This is a myopic POV for an economist to take, though, right?

Of course when impoverished, but well meaning and hard-working people need help there is an immediate and short-term economic drain. That's what it means to need help.
However, that help is short-lived and the immediate investment will yield solid ROI for decades if not generations, yeah?

The countries listed are dreadful when it comes to immigrating productivity. The drain is long-term.

Smart immigration needs to do both:
Maximize the number of innocent and productive immigrants
Minimize the number of criminal and non-productive immigrants

That's in part what this is all about. The countries on the list on average provide awful immigrants relative to other countries. It would be smart to have a very easy immigration policy from, say, Poland, while a very tight immigration policy on Somalia. We should probably be importing like 20x the amount of Polish than Somalis.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's a reason to tighten immigration standards.

I mean... there are good reasons, but none of yours are them is what I'm saying.

You're making wild guesses and generalizations and asserting things which you have no research or authority to back.

Great idea. Tightening immigration standards from regions and demos that are less prone to being allies does that.

No, not tightening standards. Remember, innocent until proven guilty is our thing, here.
Having a robust system that ensures the same standards from all sources is better.

Women and children on the lifeboat first. That such a large proportion of these "refugees" being able-bodied men (one source I saw a while back was that it is a very sizable majority) tells us that something is not right.

Sounds like you imposing your own narrative onto a story you know very little about.

You said, "I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."

Could you set a lower bar for criminalizing a group of people?
I mean... that sounds like someone somewhere didn't do their job, to be sure. But you seem to be suggesting this is the norm, which, based on, "I've seen multiple photos" seems pretty trigger-happy on the "save me daddy guvm't from these bad guys! I'll pay all the taxes!" cry.

Working with bad elements you're stuck with doesn't mean it's a good idea to invite bad elements you're not stuck with.

Fair.

The countries listed are dreadful when it comes to immigrating productivity. The drain is long-term.

Source, or what are even talking about?

What agency tracks "immigrating productivity?" What are their evaluation criteria? Based on what sample size and time period?

That's in part what this is all about. The countries on the list on average provide awful immigrants relative to other countries.

Provide aweful immigrants relative to other coutnries? How can this be demonstrated?
How is that not lazy hatin'?

It would be racist to have a very easy immigration policy from, say, Poland, while a very tight immigration policy on Somalia.

FYP.

We should probably be importing like 20x the amount of Polish than Somalis.

A perfectly fair immigration policy with equal standards for all applicants will do exactly this, if your above comments are anything more than lazy hatin', I mean.

[wufwugy]

I mean... there are good reasons, but none of yours are them is what I'm saying.

Increased probability of terrorism and decreased probability of productivity are very great reasons.

Having a robust system that ensures the same standards from all sources is better.

Which is what this is about. To ensure safety, quality, and other attributes, it is a good idea to use extreme scrutiny for immigration from places like Somalia and not so extreme scrutiny from places like Poland.

Sounds like you imposing your own narrative onto a story you know very little about.

You said, "I've seen multiple instances of the same men caught in photos with firearms in a gang AND admitted as refugees in Europe."

Could you set a lower bar for criminalizing a group of people?
I mean... that sounds like someone somewhere didn't do their job, to be sure. But you seem to be suggesting this is the norm, which, based on, "I've seen multiple photos" seems pretty trigger-happy on the "save me daddy guvm't from these bad guys! I'll pay all the taxes!" cry.

That was my attempt to persuade. As we all know, facts are not persuasive and most types of logical argument are not either. The fact is that there are unique challenges regarding the Syrian "refugees" in part because of the higher probability of them having terrorists among them than is typical of immigrants originating from the average other regions. To some people, anecdote is a persuasive way to get a fact across. Didn't work here.

Source, or what are even talking about?

What agency tracks "immigrating productivity?" What are their evaluation criteria? Based on what sample size and time period?

I don't bookmark. The amount of immigrants from particular areas (like Somalia) that are on welfare and don't have jobs is vastly higher than typical.

I have family members who are enough of a case study themselves. They built from the ground up what has become a highly successful, nationwide company. They have dealt with many, many thousands of workers over the decades of their company. From one of their lips to my ears: "I get more work out of one Korean than ten Somalis." Yet, of course, they are forced to employ and assist Somalis that they otherwise would not because government policy.

FYP.

Neither of those are races. The government disallowing smart discrimination on relevant factors is one of the key ways that people get fucked over.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Increased probability of terrorism and decreased probability of productivity are very great reasons.

Neither of which have you demonstrated.

Besides which, you keep dodging the question of how many innocent people you're willing to treat with reduced dignity to stop how many terrorists. I'm sure you're not saying any non0 % is unacceptable, so the whole crux of this rests on unknown information.

The polarization of your position is based on nothing.

Which is what this is about. To ensure safety, quality, and other attributes, it is a good idea to use extreme scrutiny for immigration from places like Somalia and not so extreme scrutiny from places like Poland.

No, that's selectively profiling all the people from one place because of some of the people from that place. If not direct racism, then clear ethnic profiling.
Fair procedures don't allow for "extra scrutiny" for some places because that means that we're intentionally leaving holes in our policy which any clever terrorist can easily figure out. Like, "If I sneak out the window, mom and dad wont know that I'm out late with my friends." kind of clever.

That was my attempt to persuade. As we all know, facts are not persuasive and most types of logical argument are not either. The fact is that there are unique challenges regarding the Syrian "refugees" in part because of the higher probability of them having terrorists among them than is typical of immigrants originating from the average other regions. To some people, anecdote is a persuasive way to get a fact across. Didn't work here.

Get out of here with that tripe. You know the level of science in these threads these days. Don't dodge the point.

In this case, the point is that you made some BS up as the backbone of your position and now that that's exposed, I want to know the actual motivation for your position instead of some random BS you made up to humor us.

I don't bookmark. The amount of immigrants from particular areas (like Somalia) that are on welfare and don't have jobs is vastly higher than typical.

If you can't provide a source for us to evaluate ourselves, then your point is still coming across as you shilling some party line w/o actually knowing what you're talking about.

I have family members who are enough of a case study themselves. They built from the ground up what has become a highly successful, nationwide company. They have dealt with many, many thousands of workers over the decades of their company. From one of their lips to my ears: "I get more work out of one Korean than ten Somalis." Yet, of course, they are forced to employ and assist Somalis that they otherwise would not because government policy.

So now your argument is that some people in your family said some broad stereotypes about people based on geography and that should dictate our nation's immigration policy?

This is totally a boring position to understand, actually.

Neither of those are races. The government disallowing smart discrimination on relevant factors is one of the key ways that people get fucked over.

Lol. If there was any ambiguity in my meaning, then I'll apologize, but I feel confident that you know full well what I was saying and that it's no coincidence that most Polish people are white and most Somali people are black.

[CoccoBill]

Women and children on the lifeboat first. That such a large proportion of these "refugees" being able-bodied men (one source I saw a while back was that it is a very sizable majority) tells us that something is not right.

Imagine you're living in Aleppo with your family. You need to flee with the wife and the kids, cos bombs. You've had a decent job, so you can afford the trip (a few thousand to the traffickers). You leave Syria and enter the next country up, Lebanon. You're in refugee camps hosting tens of thousands, with very little water, food or shelter. You need to get your family to a safer place, maybe somewhere you can get some kind of a job and put your kids to school. Do you

a) get your family on a raft and try to cross from either Lebanon or Turkey to europe, sailing a couple days with a significant percentage of the travellers drowning in the mediterranean, to be followed by days or weeks going around europe carrying everything you own.
b) go by yourself, being the strongest, having the best chance to make the trip, try to get asylum somewhere and petition your family to follow.

[wufwugy]

Imagine you're living in Aleppo with your family. You need to flee with the wife and the kids, cos bombs. You've had a decent job, so you can afford the trip (a few thousand to the traffickers). You leave Syria and enter the next country up, Lebanon. You're in refugee camps hosting tens of thousands, with very little water, food or shelter. You need to get your family to a safer place, maybe somewhere you can get some kind of a job and put your kids to school. Do you

a) get your family on a raft and try to cross from either Lebanon or Turkey to europe, sailing a couple days with a significant percentage of the travellers drowning in the mediterranean, to be followed by days or weeks going around europe carrying everything you own.
b) go by yourself, being the strongest, having the best chance to make the trip, try to get asylum somewhere and petition your family to follow.

c) women and children first.

[CoccoBill]

c) women and children first.

On a perilous journey across the seas and europe, on foot, while you stay back and chill. Most people don't seem to share your views, and instead select b).

[wufwugy]

On a perilous journey across the seas and europe, on foot, while you stay back and chill. Most people don't seem to share your views, and instead select b).

Staying is worse. If it's not, then the argument that the people need to be taken is contradicted. And (b) is contradicted since the family would still follow.

There is a reason why thousands of years of evolution got us to believe women and children first.

[CoccoBill]

Staying is worse. If it's not, then the argument that the people need to be taken is contradicted. And (b) is contradicted since the family would still follow.

There is a reason why thousands of years of evolution got us to believe women and children first.

Please reread. The options were to either stay in the neighboring countries (Lebanon and Turkey, which both still hold the vast majority of all refugees ever to leave Syria) or to travel to Europe, North America or wherever. Not to stay in Syria.

[wufwugy]

Please reread. The options were to either stay in the neighboring countries (Lebanon and Turkey, which both still hold the vast majority of all refugees ever to leave Syria) or to travel to Europe, North America or wherever. Not to stay in Syria.

So, they're not refugees then. Gotcha.