PDA

View Full Version : Illegal immigrants matter for US elections


GonzoTheGreat
10-22-2016, 04:19 AM
As it says in the US Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Illegal immigrants fall under the "all other persons" clause, so their number should count when deciding how many seats in the House every state gets, and how many members of the electoral college in presidential elections.

Davian93
10-22-2016, 03:05 PM
Yeah...and?

They already do count towards that...so I'm missing your point here.

ShadowbaneX
10-22-2016, 03:25 PM
Yeah...and?

They already do count towards that...so I'm missing your point here.

Since when did Gonzo ever make a point?

GonzoTheGreat
10-23-2016, 03:43 AM
They already do count towards that...so I'm missing your point here.
One would think that it would actually be to the advantage of both state legislators and voters to increase their influence in Washington. Thus, it would stand to reason that they would be very willing to welcome lots of illegals. Those can't vote, so they won't dilute the influence of local citizens, but they do count, so they do matter when it comes to deciding how many representatives should be sent to Washington.

Yet lots of US states and many of the voters seem actually hostile towards illegals. That doesn't make sense, does it?

Nazbaque
10-23-2016, 06:23 AM
One would think that it would actually be to the advantage of both state legislators and voters to increase their influence in Washington. Thus, it would stand to reason that they would be very willing to welcome lots of illegals. Those can't vote, so they won't dilute the influence of local citizens, but they do count, so they do matter when it comes to deciding how many representatives should be sent to Washington.

Yet lots of US states and many of the voters seem actually hostile towards illegals. That doesn't make sense, does it?

So Gonzo now you are expecting people to make sense? You expect Americans to make sense? I thought you were more sensible than that.

GonzoTheGreat
10-23-2016, 07:08 AM
So Gonzo now you are expecting people to make sense? You expect Americans to make sense? I thought you were more sensible than that.
Trump has shown me that I could not predict what Americans would do and believe anyway, so why shouldn't I expect them to make sense?

Nazbaque
10-23-2016, 07:59 AM
Trump has shown me that I could not predict what Americans would do and believe anyway, so why shouldn't I expect them to make sense?

Ah but the logical stance would be not expecting anything whatsoever. Any expectation is a logically flawed position.

GonzoTheGreat
10-23-2016, 09:23 AM
But if you're right and logic doesn't work with Americans, then not using logic would be logical, wouldn't it?

Nazbaque
10-23-2016, 10:49 AM
But if you're right and logic doesn't work with Americans, then not using logic would be logical, wouldn't it?

Oh logic works with everything. The fact is that people in general and Americans especially don't make decisions based on logic and thus logic dictates that it is illogical to expect their decisions to be logical and it is also illogical to expect their decisions not to be logical. There is no rule to their decisions and thus any expectation is illogical. Unless of course one discovers an unbroken pattern to the decision process. In such an event one may at least consider certain eventualities more likely than others though it would be wise to remember that this particular case might be the first break in the pattern.

Ozymandias
10-23-2016, 09:07 PM
Trump has shown me that I could not predict what Americans would do and believe anyway, so why shouldn't I expect them to make sense?

Why is this restricted to Americans? People act illogically. Le Pen polled close to what, 20% of the vote in the initial voting? If the US had a parliamentary, multiparty system, it is highly debatable whether Trump would have pulled those sorts of numbers.

Kimon
10-23-2016, 10:03 PM
Heck, Brexit passed with 53% of the vote in England, and Wallonia recently single-handedly blocked a trade deal (CETA) between the EU and Canada. Trump and Le Pen are the most egregious examples, but this nativism and anti-trade nonsense isn't just an American problem.

Here, for instance, is the Economist's brief take on CETA.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21709060-tiny-region-belgium-opposes-trade-reasons-are-hard-understand-wallonia

Wallonia boasts one cow for every three humans and its lavishly subsidised farmers are wary of cheap Canadian competition. Erwin Schöpges, a Walloon dairy farmer who joined the protests outside parliament, says he already faces milk prices below his production costs. “We want to trade with Canada, but we would rather not abolish tariffs,” he says.

Sound familiar?

GonzoTheGreat
10-24-2016, 03:25 AM
Actually, the main objection that the Walloons have against CETA is that it implicitly assumes that either Canada or the EU is an untrustworthy dictatorship with corrupt courts. After all, that is why the special above-the-law arbitration is inserted into the treaty: because at least one of the governments involved is utterly untrustworthy.

But if the EU is really that bad (Canada is a nice democracy, right?), then Wallonia has no reason at all to trust whatever deals the EU is making.

Ozymandias
10-24-2016, 07:45 AM
Heck, Brexit passed with 53% of the vote in England, and Wallonia recently single-handedly blocked a trade deal (CETA) between the EU and Canada. Trump and Le Pen are the most egregious examples, but this nativism and anti-trade nonsense isn't just an American problem.

Here, for instance, is the Economist's brief take on CETA.


Sound familiar?

My understanding (which isn't great) was that the Brexit decision was driven far more by economics than the kind of racist animus we see out of the modern GOP (or the National Front in France). And that the open borders issues had as much to do with what most American conservatives would consider to be unobjectionable immigrants (Western Europeans taking advantage of the open economy) as opposed to North Africans or whoever it is the English are particularly concerned about.

Davian93
10-24-2016, 08:55 AM
Heck, Brexit passed with 53% of the vote in England, and Wallonia recently single-handedly blocked a trade deal (CETA) between the EU and Canada. Trump and Le Pen are the most egregious examples, but this nativism and anti-trade nonsense isn't just an American problem.

Here, for instance, is the Economist's brief take on CETA.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21709060-tiny-region-belgium-opposes-trade-reasons-are-hard-understand-wallonia



Sound familiar?

The troubling part of this is that historically, a healthy democracy tends to act in its own best interests for the most part...so votes like Brexit and the others mentioned are huge red flags of some underlying issues in Western society...a Trump victory (as far fetched as that sounds now that he's polling down 10-12 points nationally as we close in on election day) would be another huge red flag against that theory. The lead up to WWII is a great example of this. The countries with weak democratic traditions were the ones that reacted to the adversity of the post WWI world by going extremist. We saw this in Italy and Germany most famously...and even Germany's slightly stronger democratic traditions meant it took both the reparations period AND the Great Depression to destroy their nascent democracy. However, if you look at the USA, the UK and France...3 of the most established and stable if not the 3 strongest democratic countries in the world, all 3 never really had any concerns with a fall into fascism or communism. The Communist party and the proto-fascist parties in all 3 countries never really had a chance...even in France with its general electoral wackiness.

So...there are a lot of parallels in western society between now and 100 years ago. Hopefully we don't all do something monumentally stupid this time around.

Davian93
10-24-2016, 08:58 AM
My understanding (which isn't great) was that the Brexit decision was driven far more by economics than the kind of racist animus we see out of the modern GOP (or the National Front in France). And that the open borders issues had as much to do with what most American conservatives would consider to be unobjectionable immigrants (Western Europeans taking advantage of the open economy) as opposed to North Africans or whoever it is the English are particularly concerned about.

With Brexit, I believe there was a pretty strong correlation between the conservative elements of the English majority and the "We don't like foreigners" element of their society. A fairly large feeling of "why are we carrying 'them?'" out of the haves in England along with their version of the Trumpistas. 'them' being the undesirables (in their opinion)...whether it be refugees, foreigners or welfare moochers (again their term, not mine).

Kimon
10-24-2016, 09:35 AM
My understanding (which isn't great) was that the Brexit decision was driven far more by economics than the kind of racist animus we see out of the modern GOP (or the National Front in France). And that the open borders issues had as much to do with what most American conservatives would consider to be unobjectionable immigrants (Western Europeans taking advantage of the open economy) as opposed to North Africans or whoever it is the English are particularly concerned about.

Economic demagoguery played a role in Brexit, just as it does in the antagonism against other free trade deals (ceta, ttp, ttip, nafta, etc), but these deals tend to be a net economic benefit. Both Trump and Bernie played upon the hostilities towards free trade, albeit Bernie did not also include Trump's other big issues - hostility towards immigrants, gun rights, and abortion. And keep in mind, both Trump and Bernie were supportive of the Brexit vote. And that should not be a surprise considering how similar the Brexit movement was to the own demagoguery. And Brexit was driven also by concerns over immigration (not just the refugee crisis, but certainly exacerbated by it), over being forced to accept Schengen, and to cede too much autonomy to Brussels. This is not much different from our states' rights problem that has plagued the Union since the nascency of our republic.

What happened in Wallonia is but another example of this. Not of the fear of immigrants, but of the antagonism towards free trade and of the hostitlity towards federalism. This isn't even just Belgium standing alone in the way of the ratification of a trade deal, it is one region within Belgium, Wallonia (technically it was also the city of Brussels and the French-speaking population as well, so three "regions" within Belgium), that scuttled this deal, that seemingly had the support of all the other nations, or at least governments, within the EU. And this is a trade deal over which there can be no legitimate labor or environmental grievances, as labor and environmental laws do not differ substantially enough between the EU and Canada for that to be a reasonable object of obstruction. This is just about protectivism and tariffs. This, in American terms, would be equivalent to not just letting Michigan or Ohio scuttle the ttp and ttip, but letting just Cleveland and Detroit do so. It almost ensures that any trade deal post-Brexit between the EU and England (or Britain, if Britain still exists) will be rendered impossible. It also calls into serious question the ability of the EU to function at all if such a precedent for regional obstruction is allowed to continue.

Ozymandias
10-24-2016, 10:51 AM
Right well I've always been taught that the EU has transformed from an vehicle to bind France and Germany together so tightly in an economic sense that we never have another (European-instigated) World War, into a vehicle to protect French and German agricultural and industrial interests at the expense of the rest of the EU community.

GonzoTheGreat
10-24-2016, 10:54 AM
I think that the problem isn't quite "free trade". Instead, it is "corporate dominance" which bugs those who object to those trade treaties. The only really surprising thing is that one (out of thirty or more) of the parliaments involved actually said no, instead of ceding power to whatever unelected group would be appointed to overrule democracy.

I think that the EU could still function, if it were willing to actually listen to its citizens rather than simply steaming on no matter what. It is that "we will not be swayed by anything the voters say" mentality which drives the trend towards ever more extreme votes.

Nazbaque
10-24-2016, 01:37 PM
However bad it is now compared to how good it might be the worst is always the "revolution" in between.

When EU is no more what will be there while we think up the better system? In so many ways it is still better than nothing at all.

The big problem are the people who refuse to believe something needs to be replaced until it actually falls to pieces no matter how much it creaks and groans.

Southpaw2012
10-26-2016, 01:23 PM
If the Founders considered illegal immigrants to play a vital role in American politics, there would not be a citizenship requirement.


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/dumb-american-youth

Nazbaque
10-26-2016, 02:26 PM
If the Founders were infallible, Trump wouldn't be able to run for president.

Kimon
10-26-2016, 04:02 PM
If the Founders considered illegal immigrants to play a vital role in American politics, there would not be a citizenship requirement.


http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/dumb-american-youth

This article has nothing to do with immigration, illegal or legal, nor anything to do with citizenship requirements. Why are you linking it? As an aside, you also have a tendency to read some rather dubious and obscure sources.

Kimon
10-26-2016, 04:09 PM
If the Founders were infallible, Trump wouldn't be able to run for president.

He's far from the first racist to run. Far from the first idiot, or narcissist. It's embarrassing that simply asserting unconditional support for the 2nd Amendment and unconditional opposition to abortion is enough to overcome his blatant racism and misogyny, but he is clearly a naturally born citizen of sufficient age. He has thus fulfilled the only prereqs, even if he is still perhaps the least qualified major party candidate in the history of the Union. It's sad that he'll get so many votes, but being a POS shouldn't disqualify someone from running.

Davian93
10-26-2016, 04:15 PM
Overcome?

Its a feature, not a bug for them.

Nazbaque
10-26-2016, 07:10 PM
He's far from the first racist to run. Far from the first idiot, or narcissist. It's embarrassing that simply asserting unconditional support for the 2nd Amendment and unconditional opposition to abortion is enough to overcome his blatant racism and misogyny, but he is clearly a naturally born citizen of sufficient age. He has thus fulfilled the only prereqs, even if he is still perhaps the least qualified major party candidate in the history of the Union. It's sad that he'll get so many votes, but being a POS shouldn't disqualify someone from running.

Why not?

Kimon
10-26-2016, 07:37 PM
Why not?

Because this is a free society. Being disgusted by the things he has said and done is a reason not to vote for him, not to deny his right to run, or the right of bigots and idiots to vote for him. It's a bad choice to vote for him, but they still deserve the right to make that bad choice.

Nazbaque
10-26-2016, 09:11 PM
Because this is a free society. Being disgusted by the things he has said and done is a reason not to vote for him, not to deny his right to run, or the right of bigots and idiots to vote for him. It's a bad choice to vote for him, but they still deserve the right to make that bad choice.

By that logic people should have the right to make the bad choice of cutting someone's throat. There are things people must not be free to do. Perhaps being a POS is not one of them, but whether it is or not "this is a free society" is a BS argument and it will be so in any given discussion. Rid yourself of that notion. It just isn't true.

Kimon
10-26-2016, 10:10 PM
By that logic people should have the right to make the bad choice of cutting someone's throat. There are things people must not be free to do. Perhaps being a POS is not one of them, but whether it is or not "this is a free society" is a BS argument and it will be so in any given discussion. Rid yourself of that notion. It just isn't true.

I hope you're just trolling.

If, by chance, you're not, this tends to be the end result of the type of thinking exemplified above:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-election-candidates-idUSKCN0V419V

Nazbaque
10-26-2016, 10:18 PM
I hope you're just trolling.

So you still believe in freedom. That is rather disgusting actually. Maybe you just haven't applied thought to the subject.

GonzoTheGreat
10-27-2016, 03:16 AM
If the Founders had been opposed to illegal immigration, they would have stayed inside the original 13 colonies, rather than illegally immigrating all over what is now mainland USA.

Kimon
10-27-2016, 09:47 AM
Wallonia finally backed down.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37788882

Davian93
10-27-2016, 10:30 AM
Wallonia finally backed down.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37788882

And the EU survives another day...