• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Border

Why don't they do this? Do people think that letting prospective immigrants freely enter the country will somehow cause the US economy to collapse? That law and order will suddenly crumble and anarchy reign supreme?
Click to expand...

'Murica!!
And guns, or some such nonsense.
 
Francesca R said:
Per applicant?
Per square kilometre of territory?
Or what?
Click to expand...

Per square kilometer multiplied by the ecological carrying capacity minus the average population density multiplied by the annual job openings minus the average unemployment rate. Of course.
 
wrs said:
Jump across to Nuevo Laredo and it's far different, that is the point.
Click to expand...
Then why did you invite people to visit one of the border towns you have in Texas? It seems like you meant to invite people to one of the border towns you don't have in Texas.

But if that's the point, it seems like a bad one to me. Why would you look to a Mexican city for an indication of what an American city with a large Hispanic population might look like, when you have a demographically similar city on the American side of the border, one which according to you is far better off?

I am not sure what comparisons you are making between Laredo and Houston that you would consider Laredo better than Houston.
Click to expand...
Oh, just the usual stuff about Houston being a nightmare of ugly, uncontrolled sprawl with little beyond a decent job market to recommend it. In Laredo it was at least possible to get anywhere in less than an hour.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to live in either place.

Here in Texas we have a Robin Hood taxation scheme for schools whereby poorer districts receive money from districts that are better off. The biggest recipients of the money have been districts along the southern border of the state also known as the valley.
Click to expand...
Seems like a reasonable way of mitigating the insanely inequitable policy of funding schools through property taxes. Good for Texas. And it might have something to do with why Laredo's prospects look better than New Laredo's.

But I take it you're just grumbling about immigrants getting your tax dollars here? Well, that's always the case, it's just that most immigrants arrive by way of their mothers' vaginal canals.
 
mumblethrax said:
Then why did you invite people to visit one of the border towns you have in Texas? It seems like you meant to invite people to one of the border towns you don't have in Texas.

But if that's the point, it seems like a bad one to me. Why would you look to a Mexican city for an indication of what an American city with a large Hispanic population might look like, when you have a demographically similar city on the American side of the border, one which according to you is far better off?
Click to expand...

While Laredo is better off than Nuevo Laredo, it's worse off than most other cities in Texas of similar size, certainly less well off than Houston.

mumblethrax said:
Oh, just the usual stuff about Houston being a nightmare of ugly, uncontrolled sprawl with little beyond a decent job market to recommend it. In Laredo it was at least possible to get anywhere in less than an hour.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to live in either place.
Click to expand...

So have you lived in either place? Seems like you were only a visitor to Laredo.

I'm not seeing Houston as ugly uncontrolled sprawl, in fact, Houston has the best freeway system in the state now. It took 50 years of building freeways but Houston does have the best network. I live in Austin and we are probably on top for horrible driving conditions. It's true that Houston doesn't have zoning laws and that made it possible to put apartments and shopping centers pretty much anywhere. However, Houston is probably better off on the whole for lack of zoning. One of the prime reasons that the highway system is so bad here in Austin is the ridiculous zoning restrictions that have produced a really stupid growth pattern for the city. Austin is a long narrow city which has made it entirely unsuitable for a loop. I love my city but I am not relishing the traffic these days.

My parents were native Houstonians and are buried at Glenwood (look it up if you are curious). My sister lives in the Heights and I still own a couple of homes on Galveston bay in LaPorte with my sister along with four plots at Glenwood. Houston is a well integrated city with a lot going for it. If it takes you an hour to get somewhere I have to wonder where you are going and when. With the lack of zoning, you shouldn't have to drive very far to get what you are looking for. I grew up inside the loop and to me, that is Houston. What I can't stand is 95 and 95% humidity for so much of the year, ergo, I stayed in Austin 40 years ago after arriving for college.


mumblethrax said:
But I take it you're just grumbling about immigrants getting your tax dollars here? Well, that's always the case, it's just that most immigrants arrive by way of their mothers' vaginal canals.
Click to expand...

Which is another good argument for not letting them here in the first place if they don't have a support network in place. I am pointing out that uncontrolled immigration deprives natives of the benefit of the tax money that was paid on their behalf. Houston is a good example of a solid immigrant population that has gotten here the right way and established a strong community in the city. The Vietnamese community is a really solid anchor for the southwest extent of Houston.

Anyway, I am not against immigration, my wife is one. I was just pointing out why people are rightly concerned about uncontrolled immigration, particularly along the border with Mexico.
 
wrs said:
While Laredo is better off than Nuevo Laredo, it's worse off than most other cities in Texas of similar size, certainly less well off than Houston.
Click to expand...
So was the clue that Texas border towns are not as well off as some other towns in Texas?

So have you lived in either place? Seems like you were only a visitor to Laredo.
Click to expand...
You invited people to visit your border towns to get a clue. I told you that I have visited your border towns, and I didn't get the clue. I haven't lived there, but then you didn't indicate that I needed to.

Since I'm unlikely to ever live in Texas at this point in my life, maybe you can just go ahead and tell me what the clue is.

Which is another good argument for not letting them here in the first place if they don't have a support network in place. I am pointing out that uncontrolled immigration deprives natives of the benefit of the tax money that was paid on their behalf.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think this is a good argument. In fact, I'd call it straightforwardly nativist. As a non-native tax-payer, I am surprised to learn that the taxes I pay are paid on behalf of natives. I was hoping that my interests, those of others like me, and those of naturalized citizens might be considered at some point as well.

Anyway, I am not against immigration, my wife is one. I was just pointing out why people are rightly concerned about uncontrolled immigration, particularly along the border with Mexico.
Click to expand...
I'll just say that I think you have a highly nebulous way of pointing things out--I still don't even know what the concern is. My best guess is something like "immigrants might benefit from public services to a greater degree than they pay in."
 
Caper said:
I'm white... I'm Canadian... I don't think they would let me just march on in either.
Click to expand...


Crossing the border into the U.S. is still relatively easy for a Canadian. All you need is some proper photo identification (a driver's licence is generally sufficient, though a passport is obviously much better).

Staying (and working) in the U.S. long-term is something you're not supposed to do without a visa. But just entering for a vacation or such is not much of a problem.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Crossing the border into the U.S. is still relatively easy for a Canadian. All you need is some proper photo identification (a driver's licence is generally sufficient, though a passport is obviously much better).

Staying (and working) in the U.S. long-term is something you're not supposed to do without a visa. But just entering for a vacation or such is not much of a problem.
Click to expand...

And what happens because of this? We're infested with Justin Biebers!!! I say, stop the northern menace today! Fence! Fence! Fence! Let not the poisonous maple leaves fall on our fair soil, to take root and condemn us all to a moosey doom!!!!!!!!!! Blame Canada!!!
 
mumblethrax said:
So was the clue that Texas border towns are not as well off as some other towns in Texas?
Click to expand...

I suspect that you aren't going to be satisfied with anything I post on this topic. I think you have worn out your welcome on this point with me and I only commented regarding the OP as follows:

wrs said:
He should take a trip to one of the border cities we have here in Texas and he might get a clue.
Click to expand...

mumblethrax said:
You invited people to visit your border towns to get a clue.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing and you have the post above as reference.


mumblethrax said:
I told you that I have visited your border towns, and I didn't get the clue. I haven't lived there, but then you didn't indicate that I needed to.
Click to expand...

My comment wasn't directed at you nor anyone else, it was directed at the OP and furthermore, it wasn't a conclusion that he would get a clue, only that he might.


mumblethrax said:
Since I'm unlikely to ever live in Texas at this point in my life, maybe you can just go ahead and tell me what the clue is.
Click to expand...

Why should I? I never directed the comment at you nor about you.

If you didn't get it, why should I try to convince you?

mumblethrax said:
Well, I don't think this is a good argument. In fact, I'd call it straightforwardly nativist. As a non-native tax-payer, I am surprised to learn that the taxes I pay are paid on behalf of natives.
Click to expand...

So when I state that people who might object to open borders might be concerned about those crossing the border and who cannot get a job relying on the social network here, how do you get that as referring to yourself? Furthermore how is that in anyway construed as nativist? It is clearly about people collecting benefits for which they have contributed nothing and thereby depriving others who have contributed, of what they might be more fully entitled to.

mumblethrax said:
I was hoping that my interests, those of others like me, and those of naturalized citizens might be considered at some point as well.
Click to expand...

Why? They really were never part of the OP nor part of my response because they simply aren't germane to the discussion.

mumblethrax said:
I'll just say that I think you have a highly nebulous way of pointing things out--I still don't even know what the concern is. My best guess is something like "immigrants might benefit from public services to a greater degree than they pay in."
Click to expand...

I think you are too busy attempting to attribute to me something I didn't claim, it's a common posting style on this board. I am not taking the bait here so go find someone else to badger with off topic diversions.
 
rwguinn said:
Per capita is a damn silly way to measure it.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that per-capita is the most sensible way to measure it, but I suppose that per-acre or per-dollar-GDP might be a useful measures in some limited situations.

How would you make fair comparison between the number of immigrants into countries with vastly different population sizes, available land, and economic resources?
 
wrs said:
Why should I? I never directed the comment at you nor about you.

If you didn't get it, why should I try to convince you?
Click to expand...
Because there's generally a burden of proof that comes along with making claims, even claims presented as hanging implications.

Furthermore how is that in anyway construed as nativist?
Click to expand...
I don't think a sentence like this one...

"I am pointing out that uncontrolled immigration deprives natives of the benefit of the tax money that was paid on their behalf."

...has to be construed as nativist. It's nativist on its face. Do you genuinely believe that tax money is paid on behalf of natives?

I think you are too busy attempting to attribute to me something I didn't claim, it's a common posting style on this board. I am not taking the bait here so go find someone else to badger with off topic diversions.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I don't think asking you to elaborate on an insinuation is an off-topic diversion.
 
mumblethrax said:
Because there's generally a burden of proof that comes along with making claims, even claims presented as hanging implications.


I don't think a sentence like this one...

"I am pointing out that uncontrolled immigration deprives natives of the benefit of the tax money that was paid on their behalf."
...has to be construed as nativist. It's nativist on its face. Do you genuinely believe that tax money is paid on behalf of natives?
Sorry, but I don't think asking you to elaborate on an insinuation is an off-topic diversion.
Click to expand...

So you are still on this nativist business? I elaborated here:

wrs said:
It is clearly about people collecting benefits for which they have contributed nothing and thereby depriving others who have contributed, of what they might be more fully entitled to.
Click to expand...

So it's interesting to me that I probably misused native because it's focus is too narrow. You seem to have decided to ignore any previous and subsequent post that indicates a broader application and instead drill in on the word native. Irrespective of the fact that I clearly stated before and after the ill-fated and poor choice of word that the legitimate concern would be benefits paid to persons that weren't entitled to them which would dilute the benefit for those who actually were entitled. The latter would include natives as well as any other legally entitled residents. Are you happy with that? Do you have any other nit's to pick or pretense to grievous error on my part remaining?
 
It's simple common sense really. If you are coming into a country with a skill that would be useful, come on in, you are making the country a more productive place. If you have no skill beyond being able to do simple labor, and come with many traits that will make getting work more difficult, chances are you will not be contributing to society in a very meaningful way.

we have enough folks like that already here, so as callous as it is to say, we simply don't need any more. Also less people willing to work under the table for slave wages will force companies to pay more for these jobs, and again help folks native to the country.

Really just look at it on the small scale. I'm sure we all have a lost of folks we would let live rent free if they fell upon hard times. Now if i expected the same treatment from anyone here, I'd be insane, and with good cause. If you let everyone who is out of a job sleep on your couch and eat your food, you would soon be the one in the poor house.
 
wrs said:
So it's interesting to me that I probably misused native because it's focus is too narrow. You seem to have decided to ignore any previous and subsequent post that indicates a broader application and instead drill in on the word native. Irrespective of the fact that I clearly stated before and after the ill-fated and poor choice of word that the legitimate concern would be benefits paid to persons that weren't entitled to them which would dilute the benefit for those who actually were entitled. The latter would include natives as well as any other legally entitled residents. Are you happy with that? Do you have any other nit's to pick or pretense to grievous error on my part remaining?
Click to expand...
You know, I believe I asked you if you really believed that.

Perhaps the thing to do before climbing up on the cross would be to say "No, I chose my words poorly."

Saying that some people are more "fully" entitled to benefits than others does not actually do a great deal to dispel the sense that there's a nativist sentiment at work in your reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom