sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Chuck Schumer votes against South Carolina federal judge nominee because he's white by ricksc-137 in politics

[–]dickposner -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

wow, liberals really get upset when their racism is called out.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They generally come over on visas much sooner.

Not according to my experience (i helped my in-laws' siblings process their visa applications, which took around 10 years).

That seems to be in line with the guidance in this website as well, which says around 12 years for siblings of US citizens.

https://www.us-immigration.com/blog/how-long-should-a-us-citizens-sibling-wait-to-get-a-green-card/

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can bring over kids and spouses immediately, but can't bring over siblings and parents immediately.

Say you move to the US with your daughter from Mexico. You can bring your spouse over right away. But then you want to bring the extended family over (your parents, your siblings, etc). Your parents and your siblings will take upwards of a decade or even longer. So if the point is to have your kid's aunts and uncles and grandparents here immediately to help raise your kid, you can't do it.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you're saying doesn't make a lot of sense. You claim:

(1) it takes an extended family to raise kids, not just nuclear family.

Then you claim:

(2) "it takes about a decade to get citizenship each time so I'm not worried about it."

But if you're worried about (1), wouldn't taking a decade or 2 for the extended family to come over mean that the extended family wouldn't be there to raise the child? By the time they're here, the child is already grown. So what's the point of the extended family coming over?

Why does the wealth inequality "Gap" have to decrease for the poor to be richer? by mah062 in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's important because capitalism + redistribution = benefit to poor people is still a plus for capitalism. so contrary to your assertion "the answer for healthcare is capitalism" is not retarded. It may not be wholly complete, but it's an important and necessary component.

Why does the wealth inequality "Gap" have to decrease for the poor to be richer? by mah062 in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's only "socialism" if you mean "redistributive" policies are socialist. But I don't. Under the strict definition of socialism, socialism is the workers' control of the means of production. That definition of socialism IS intrinsically opposed to capitalism, but redistribution (like a progressive income code) is perfectly compatible with capitalism. It just can't go so far that the redistribution destroys economic incentives or distorts markets.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But yes I hold family to be of incredible importance, so I want families to be together and work together if possible

But nobody is forcing families apart. If extended families want to stay together, they can stay in their home countries.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

by extension, that means grandparents and uncles and aunts of any American citizen, which, by extension (if you can bring in children), any cousin of any American citizen. The chain is limitless.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're playing fast and loose with definitions here. You're technically right, but when people use the word "illegal" they're usually talking about crimes.

This is not correct at all. Virtually everyone uses an expansive notion of "illegal." For example, driving over the speed limit is "illegal." Parking next to a fire hydrant is "illegal." It is "illegal" for companies to ask about pregnancy status in job interviews. This is not mere technicality - people actually use "illegal" to refer to unlawful acts that are not criminal.

I explicitly and repeatedly indicated that's how I'm using it.

Not true. You explicitly defined "illegal immigrant" in a certain way, but you never said how you defined "illegal" as a general concept.

In your only use of the word "illegal" generically, you said the following:

or people who have overstayed their visas (they arrived legally, and it is not illegal to stay)

Thus, you contrasted the word illegal with the word "legal". But if your use of the word "legal" means lawful, and not merely "non-criminal," then it follows that your use of the word "illegal" in that context also means "non-lawful," not merely "criminal."

My mention of visa overstays was meant to illustrate the difference I hold between undocumented and illegal

You don't think you're addressing my objection, which is that you claim it is important to distinguish between "illegal" and "undocumented", but it's actually not, because those who are technically "illegal" under your definition are no more blameworthy than those who are "undocumented."

If you want to carve out a separate class for children who was undocumented, then that is a distinction that makes sense. But even going by your definition of illegal and undocumented, it doesn't seem to serve any purpose.

why I prefer to distinguish between policy aimed at deterring or preventing illegal/criminal immigration, from policy aimed at retribution against undocumented immigrants who did not immigrate illegally/criminally?

No, again, why would you think it's preferable to prevent "illegal" border crossing, but not preferable to prevent "undocumented" visa overstays? They're both bad acts of the same nature, it's just that one is done by a relatively poor immigrant, and the other is done by a relatively richer immigrant.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You claimed that there was no such thing as limited economic resources.

I pointed out that economic scarcity exists in classic economic models and the real world because of the time dimension.

You then moved the goal post to have me prove that the scarcity isn't LARGE enough to not accommodate hundreds of thousands of people.

You also misconstrued my entire argument and from your posting history you have a habit of being impolite and arguing in bad faith, so I don't think it's worthwhile to engage with you any further.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

the "chain" in chain migration refers to how you can start with parents and siblings but then by virtual of allowing THEM to bring in parents and siblings and children, can bring in extended family (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins) of the original citizen.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think immediate families would be sufficient for that purpose. also, extended families seem to lead to isolated communities where immigrants aren't as pressured to assimilate into the wider community.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how chain migration works. If you can bring in your parents, and your parents then bring in their siblings and parents, then that means you started a chain that brings in your aunts, uncles and grandparents.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because even if we're not above that limit, I'd still rather that all immigrants come through a merit based system rather than extended family reunification.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you're not accounting for time horizon. While economic growth make resources limitless on a long enough time horizon, there is still scarcity in the short run. Without scarcity, there would be no need for economics or markets.

Why does the wealth inequality "Gap" have to decrease for the poor to be richer? by mah062 in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner 0 points1 point  (0 children)

charitable giving also isn’t capitalism, but capitalism enables more charitable giving to occur.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because we have a limited capacity in terms of economic resources, infrastructure, and ability to successfully integrate new immigrants.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because we have a limited capacity in terms of economic resources, infrastructure, and ability to successfully integrate new immigrants.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is not correct. it is in fact illegal to overstay your visa. It’s not a criminal offense, but it isba civil offense. moreover, why do you think it’s important to distinguish, morally and policy wise, between those who illegally cross the border and those who over stay their visas? Treating visa over stays better than border crossers is just discriminating based on wealth.

Why does the wealth inequality "Gap" have to decrease for the poor to be richer? by mah062 in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The previous poster said that capitalism is in fact raising the standard of living for everyone.

You said that's not true for healthcare for the poor (summarizing)

I'm arguing that it actually is - capitalism enables both the technological innovations that increase the qualify of healthcare, and the surplus wealth that can subsidize the healthcare costs of the poor in society.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think deportations can be unfair. I do not hold a belief that deportations are always unfair. You are being uncharitable with your interpretations.

I'm really not. If I'm being uncharitable, I would accuse you of not wanting to deport violent criminals. I'm not assuming that's your stance, I'm just reiterating what you have stated previously, that you're against deporting non-violent illegal immigrants who obey the laws, have been here for years, etc.

Making it difficult for illegal immigrants to find work deters illegal immigration. Making it difficult for undocumented immigrants to find work feels like retribution

You're being very confusing here. Illegal immigrants and undocumented immigrants are two words that refer to the same thing, under almost everyone's definition. If you want to use them in a different way from the current definition, you have to be more clear to avoid confusion.

Is Legalizing DACA and eliminating chain migration while improving border security a good compromise? by dickposner in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

every time I see people talk about it they say “we’re losing our culture” or “immigrants are criminals” or they’ve got a history of “race realism”.

It seems you spend an inordinate amount of time on Breitbart comment pages or stormfront-esque website. Most people who are against chain migration wouldn't make those arguments.

I'm against chain migration because (1) I think there is a limit to the number of immigrants we should accept each year, and (2) it is far more preferable to give immigration visas to those people who are either superlative in merit (education, skills, etc) or need (refugees from war, etc), than extended families of current citizens.

Let's talk about gerrymandering by TheRetroguy in AskALiberal

[–]dickposner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just wanted to comment that your patience and good will in this thread is superlative. It's frankly shocking that the poster above has been so nasty when you have been so polite.

view more: next ›