Prepare for 30% of the population to be Chinese.

In any case let's first solve the convoluted road to permanent residency before we tackle the issue of citizenship.

Okay, I understand now. It's not partisan vitriol but JUSTIFIED vitriol because you just don't like him and prefer the other side. I can't believe I didn't immediately see the distinct difference there. My error. Sorry!

Being in the country legally has many advantages. Even if it takes 10 years, during those ten years they had a better time than the illegals. You say many came without a working permit, but those situations are reserved (as far as I understand) for people that come as family to someone that got a working visa. I don't think the people that did it by the book would have real reasons to complain.
Also, you are using a false dichotomy. It's not like allowing illegal inmigrants a path towards citizenship means they get to jump in line. You can have the illegal inmigrants have a path towards citizenship that takes many years. The path towards citizenship is long. Visa -> Green card -> Citizenship.

The current wait time for h1b to green card is probably around 6 years but it varies depending on the person's country of origin. The thing is, the vast majority of your h1b holders are US educated tech graduate degree holders because they get first dibs on the yearly quota. If you add the time they were f1 student status, it is easily 10 years.

This is all assuming everything goes right. Upon graduation the student finds a job where the company is willing to pay the extra h1b application fee and in the event of job loss, he/she immediately finds another job in which the company is willing to incur the extra h1b costs. The job has to be in the student's field of study. However, you can only remain an h1b for a max of 6 years unless if your employer pays to petition for your green card and it is in process. If any of the above does not occur, status immediately becomes illegal. In spite of all this, outsourcing houses can still navigate the loopholes and abuse the process.

If you are going to give a road to citizenship for illegal immigrants then you must expedite and ease the legal immigration track to citizenship. But if you do that, the current furor over h1b holders taking jobs will considered but a whisper.

I think the big problem is the system is enforced out of balance. People are here following the law and aren't working, or if they are, it's a risky deal since it is an underground economy. Others are here not giving a **** and standing in front of Home Depot.

I'm at odds with myself on all of this. If I understand the law correctly, employers are supposed to look at citizens first, then use immigrants if they are not able to find requisite talent. I don't believe for one second that there are no Americans who are willing and capable of cleaning hotels, baby sitting, picking berries, programming computers, etc. I'd bet dollars to donuts that, if you looked at the applications, every company is 80% citizens, which never got call backs.

On the other hand, I think the system is set up, mostly by accident, for easy exploitation. Even large firms are caught exploiting desperate immigrants, and the fine is oh well money, which matters less because they seldom get caught in the first place.

The only solutions I could think of is either extreme. Either absolute intolerance or total free for all. I lean against absolute intolerance because the black market will prevail and make it worse. I believe everyone should get a fair shake regardless where they come from, with minimal restrictions.

Think of it like this. If every cleaning lady had to register to work, they wouldn't be locked up as slaves in random home across the nation, some put into dangerous prostitution rings. Granted, some people would still be exploited, but it would definitely reduce mamy issues.

But I don't think we have the legal or paper pushing infrastructure to pull that plan off.

Yes, I probably lean more Republican, but an issue that openly violates human rights is a ****ing shame in this country.

I'm sorry, do I have to say nice things about Trump because of some imagined standard of needing to pretend that both sides are equal? Calling Trump's performance on the campaign trail oafish juvenile playground bullying is not some partisan attack that comes from having a "side." It's an accurate description of his performance. Granted, some people may consider that a feature, not a bug, and reasonable people can and do discuss the strengths and weaknesses of his approach (it obviously was successful for the GOP primary) but that doesn't mean it is untrue or that it shouldn't be said in polite company. Reasoned, civil discourse does not require that we pretend that Trump is a skilled orator or a man of ideas.

You don't have to pretend anything. It would just be nice if you also criticized aspects of Clinton's/Sanders' campaigns. You hardly ever do. This is what is meant by one-sided. But it doesn't really matter to me at this point as I don't think I'll be involved much ITT.

So we need some internet Fairness Doctrine?

What of Bernie do you do you think needs criticism? I talked about Trump because Katy asked about Trump. Appending each post with a criticism of Bernie's thoughts on international trade would have been silly.

No of course not. I'm having difficulty articulating what I mean. But as I said, it doesn't matter. Carry on.

I think he means the vitriol. Claiming that Trump's sole attraction is racism and should be balanced with calling Bernie's base a bunch of pot head drop outs chatting each other in college dorms. The street can run both ways and is equally absurd.

Hm, I'm curious if this is indeed true. Is it his presentation and age that would be mocked, or his socialist views? I do t know much about him but he's against the big banks and elitists so that makes me like him.

Yeah, trying to maturely discuss the election cycle without name calling and personal prejudice is just too much to ask. This thread should go to the politics forum where slinging mud and name calling is not only common but almost encouraged. Since that is where Wookie spends several hours a day (judging by his posting history) doing just that I'm not sure why he figures he has to do it here as well?

That mud slinging definitely was not my intent. I think that, no matter what side you are on, you have to admit the absurdity of this election cycle. Eh, we got what we deserved, I guess, but it is a fascinating story no matter which way you slice it, and that is worth talking about.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/washingt...-donald-trump/

I believe I have read every post in this thread. Albeit I may have skimmed a few and not read every single word over carefully.

I didn't see one instance of Wookie engaging in name calling or mud flinging as you are saying he has been.

Can you give a specific example of a post where he did that?


Saying that Donald Trump has said a lot of racist things isn't name calling and mud slinging, it's simple, documented, fact.

He said about the people coming here from Mexico

'They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists...and some, I assume, are good people.'

Is that technically a true statement. Well some percentage of the people coming over from Mexico do bring and sell drugs, some percentage of them do commit crimes here, and some percentage of them do rape here, yes. BUT...

Is it the majority? No.

Some percentage of white 'native,' Christian citizens of this country also do and sell drugs, also commit crimes, also rape.

But he doesn't say that about them, he doesn't say that about his largely white base either, although it's also true of them.

He says it about Mexicans. But he doesn't word it the way I reworded it, the fair way. He words it in a way that suggests the vast majority of Mexicans are criminals, rapists and drug mules/dealers.

He suggests that the good ones are the small minority when in reality they're the large majority.

Why is he wording it that way?

To speak to the racist and xenophobic feelings and concerns of his base. To reconfirm for them that they are right to be afraid of and hate people of different colors and cultures coming in from other countries to 'steal their jobs, rape their wives and sell drugs to their children.'

That is race based fear mongering and xenophobia. I'm not sure what else to call it.

So when Wookie says Trump is doing that I don't see how you can accuse him of name calling and mud slinging. Really that's just a fact.


You accused Wookie of only going after the right, ok I'll give it to Hillary as well.

I think Hillary is about as big of an establishment corporate shill and really corporate whore as you're ever going to find. She loves to shamelessly pander, the 'hot sauce in her purse,' bit being a perfect example if you've seen that one. She's a disgusting candidate and a disgusting human being too, to be honest.

As far as Sanders goes, well yes he does happen to be the only candidate I actually like, and I do agree with him on alot of the things he wants to do. That being said if there was negative things to say about his character, I would say them, but I honestly can't think of anything to say. If you can and it's valid well then there you go I'll accept it.

I think any negative things that can be said about Bernie though are really just people who don't like his policies. Whereas for Trump and Hillary there are actually character problems displayed.

I agree with you, daveT. A lot of Trump supporters like the fact that Trump is a businessman not a politician. There are many people who feel that a businessman would be better at running the country because what they have told me is that a businessman thinks in a different way and understands you have to make decisions and take risks. Plenty of Trump supporters like the fact that Trump says what's on his mind and is not politically correct. It doesn't mean they agree with everything he says. They tell me that they find him refreshing in his honesty. Anyway, these are just a couple reasons why people like the guy, not always because of racism.

It's interesting that in the past Trump has accused people of being neo-Nazi and Hitler-lovers, and accused Buchanan of being a racist. They say that Trump learned a thing or two from Buchanan's play book. Trump is out to win this election and he will take any and all supporters. But what his true values are I'm not so sure. He sets his sights on a goal and he goes after it in a pretty brutal fashion. The goal is to take down the competitors and win the presidency, and he's playing the game pretty well.

http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/4/...ivism-buchanan

I agree with you, Katy. I have no clue what he really stands for. Apparently, everything is open to negotiation, which may or may not include..?

I think everyone has underestimated Trump's intelligence so far, just as they do all entertainers and other outlying people. I know everyone likes to try to nullify the point, but you don't become a billionaire by being stupid. It just so happens this one enjoys the limelight, and as the old saying goes, bad press is better than no press.

Now his ex butler is saying Obama should be hung in front of the White House. Trump's crowd was smart enough to quickly condemn this, but no doubt people will latch onto this, guilt by association, etc.

Trump didn't make that money himself. He inherited a ****ton of money.

He is a dangerous, attention whoring buffoon and idiot of the highest order.

But all the candidates this time are terrible.

That's a non US opinion.

A friend of mine likes to say Trump was born on third base but thinks he hit a triple. He did indeed inherit money but I don't think its as much as you may think (a million or 2). But many have inherited much more and done much less. You don't get from there to where he is without doing lots of things right over a long period. Like him or not he is a true success story.

All politicians are attention whoring buffoons and idiots of the highest order. At least the ones in this election.

Trump was born on third base and thinks he invented baseball

This is how I feel. I think Sanders is the one who most genuinely wants to help the people. But I happen to disagree with a lot of the policies he wants to implement.

There have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of lottery winners. None that I am aware of became billionaires. In fact, many hit the skids.

Okay, fine. These are broke people who don't know any better, but that shouldn't matter much if Trump is a bafoon, but we can ignore the logic fallacy for argument sake.

How many business people become millionaires but never made the billion mark? These people are well equipped to get there since they are either self made or come from well off families who taught them how to be rich.

Finally, how many "trust fund babies" took their inherited millions and became billionaires?

We need only look at the numbers. The odds are definitely stacked against joining the three comma club.

Lattimer,

In your opinion, which Sanders and Clinton policies bother you the most? What is your chief complaint with Clinton? More character flaws than policies?

Given what the original purpose of this thread was (that was to keep the political debate out of it and make it more of an observation of the whole spectacle of the election), and what it has evolved into which is a political dogfight involving the mod (the Wookie) whose role it is supposed to be to keep the thread on track as close to this original intent as possible, it really does show how unfit the Wookie is to hold the position of mod for both these forums as well as the political ones really taking into account again how bias he is (which is obviously not isolated to this thread only).

This article from the Washington Post does a nice summary of Trump's business acumen:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...siness-empire/

It seems that those of us that claim that most of it comes from inheritance are wrong. He couldn't have done it without inheriting 40 million and his father's credit and connections, but Trump certainly did a lot of things right in terms of business. It does seem, however, that Trump has mainly been successful at real state and a failure at most other ventures.