Can't even make it up! Former bar bouncer Francis wants in and jumps into the fray.
Atheists/Agnostics: Please stand by as we in Christendom sort this out we'll be right back with you...
Response to the Pope:https://t.co/iWDjTIQyhE
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 18, 2016
104 comments:
Pretty shameful on the Pope to jump in, especially in questioning Trump's Christianity.
Since I recently watched the movie Spotlight, I think the Pope needs to focus on his church's own considerable warts.
He also should move for the immediate removal of the wall surrounding his own abode at the Vatican.
And contrary to the Pope's assertion that Trump only talks about building a wall this Q&A from Monday with Trump will dispel that LIE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H2ssTEJ9kg
Feeling like I'm at an Irish wedding...
I'm beginning to like this Pope more and more with each passing day. The Pope has learned a thing or two from his stint as a bar bouncer: mouthy thugs need a good kicking.
This just in.... Trump: 'The wall just got 10' higher and the Vatican is going to pay for it!"
Just kidding!!!
haha, John, I get it. You want to build a twenty lane bridge straight to your backyard from Mexico.
To the Pope: People living in glass houses (or in countries surrounded by 50-foot tall concrete walls and protected by a battalion of heavily armed Swiss Army guards) should not be throwing stones.
No Mal you dont get it...
We're going to do a JG in the US and all 7 billion humans can come to the USA no problemo....
Plenty of room at the inn...
Malmo: "You want to build a twenty lane bridge straight to your backyard from Mexico."
That would be impressive - I live in England.
The Pope understands something Trump doesn't. Leaving aside the utter unfeasibility of building such a wall, even if built it won't stop Mexicans getting into America. What is needed is an economic settlement that will make Mexicans want to stay in Mexico. Nafta made the problem much worse. Reversing Nafta would be a good start. Since it isn't going to happen, expect more Mexicans.
Matt: We're going to do a JG in the US and all 7 billion humans can come to the USA no problemo...."
Unless it's Santa Fe, New Mexico, count me out. That's one less person to worry about.
Mal we could easily take another 6.7B people here with enough fiscal support...
Real resources probably wouldnt be a problem.... its only 23 times our current population...
Leading USD flow is currently $4T/year for our 300M so if we multiply the current 4T by 23 then we would have to issue $92T of leading flow and it should be aok...
there wouldnt be any external sector anymore as everybody would be here so we wouldnt have to even worry about foreign USD savings...
Sounds good...
John no you'd have to come as we would want to eliminate the foreign sector entirely...
John,
Trump from the other day quote: "I will immediately re-negotiate ALL of our trade deals..."
John,
Quick Quiz: Between the Pope and Trump, which one runs a huge multinational that protects subordinates when they rape little boys?
Matt: Trump from the other day quote: "I will immediately re-negotiate ALL of our trade deals..."
Leaving aside the fact that no President has ever made a unilateral decision like this, let's take him at his word, which we shouldn't as he has promised to reinvade Iraq and steal only half its oil because he's "a generous guy". If you want to take Trump at his word on trade, you should also take him at his word that he wants to reinvade Iraq and steal its oil. Having advertised to the world that he's a criminal lunatic, ensuring no bogus "international" commitment to the war, the US military would tell Trump to go fuck himself, as they told Dubya over Iran. Why would you want to vote for this? You either take him at his word or you don't.
Anyway, will such a renegotiation make Mexico habitable again? Or make Mexico even a bigger wasteland?
On top of all this, none of his policies will help the American working and middle class.
Malmo, this is the first Pope to have done anything to address paedophilic priests. He's to be applauded. He's also the first Pope in a very long time to address poverty and take seriously the message of helping the less fortunate.
Matt: "...you'd have to come as we would want to eliminate the foreign sector entirely..."
Haha! I have to say that's very witty!
Actually, let's entertain this for a moment. Other than the absence of exchange rates, what would be the economic benefits?
Looks like I may have to come!
John,
When the Pope tears down the walls protecting himself then he would at least have consistent ground in which to argue from. Right now he's simply a double standard hypocrite.
BTW,
Just saw where the Pope said he is giving Trump the benefit of the doubt here. You doing the same, John?
Vatican has most world's most restrictive immigration policy:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/pope-call-immigration-unlikely-change-debate/?page=all
John, I have another idea I'm sure you'd embrace--Disband the Swiss Guard! Vatican City should be an open city … a sanctuary city!
I can't stop myself:
“Is the pope Catholic?” was once a rhetorical question. It’s now a legitimate one.
Pope Dope, coming out of far left-field, strikes again for those other communists of whom he is one. Once you know from whence he comes – i.e., Argentina and liberation theology – he is predictable. He’s dangerous in a small way but, in this case, he’s helping The Donald immeasurably.
Malmo, give Trump the benefit of the doubt? I try to take him as he is, notwithstanding the lies told in politics and especially during an upcoming election. The question is do *you* take him at his word?
You like the idea of a giant wall between America and Mexico. Even better, you think Mexico is going to build it because Trump says so. Do you like the idea of invading Iraq again? Do you like his dangerous bullshit claim that vaccination caused autism in a child he knows? That he saw "thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey celebrate 9/11? It was fact checked, and surprisingly it never happened. Claiming that the level of unemployment in the US is as high as 42%? Climate change is just "weather"? Forcibly deport 11 million undocumented people? The fiscal conservatism (tax cuts for the rich and no increase in the minimum wage)? Henry Kravis as Treasury Secretary? The US is "Greece on steroids"? "I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil."
I don't know what's more nutty, 42% unemployment, that the US is "Greece on steroids" or stating that he would invade Iraq with the explicit aim of forcibly taking possession of $15 trillion of its oil wealth.
The thing about Trump is that his views up until very recently were the exact opposite of those he now propounds (he was a liberal democrat) that it's hard to figure out whether he's lying or made a genuine move to the nutty right. Whichever it is, the man's unhinged.
John, I'm voting for Trump on the single issue of sealing our porous border and sending the illegals back to their homeland, which can be done. The other stuff you trot out bother me not a bit. They pale in comparison to wage and job depressing open borders. Oh, and the minimum wage would be taken care of minus the tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants flooding our country to benefit stock holders.
But since we're asking questions, how the hell can you defend the hypocrite Pope? By your standard he's no better than Trump.
One more thing, John. You aren't an American so your opinion, with all due respect, is frankly meaningless.
A neuroscientist explains how — and why — Donald Trump is only pretending to be a bigot
“Then the devil took him into a high mountain and showed him the kingdoms of the world and said that he would give them to him if he would fall down and worship him. But Jesus said: Get thee hence, Satan. That’s the end of the story according to the good simple Matthew. But it wasn’t. The devil was sly and he came to Jesus once more and said: If thou wilt accept shame and disgrace, scourging, a crown of thorns and death on the cross thou shalt save the human race, for greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Jesus fell. The devil laughed till his sides ached, for he knew the evil men would commit in the name of their redeemer.”
Somerset Maugham’s delicious anecdote about the vanity of holy men, The Razor’s Edge. Chapter Five.
Malmo: "One more thing, John. You aren't an American so your opinion, with all due respect, is frankly meaningless."
Does that mean I can only have opinions about the UK and nowhere else? And you as an American can only have opinions about the US and nowhere else? Forgive me for saying, but that doesn't seem a particularly sensible approach. I welcome international criticism of my own country. It's healthy to have an outside eye look in and report on what it sees.
Malmo: "But since we're asking questions, how the hell can you defend the hypocrite Pope? By your standard he's no better than Trump."
As I said, this is the only Pope who has done anything to address rapes committed by priests. And he's the first Pope in a very long time to take the teachings of Jesus seriously, something you would think is part of the job description. I think he should be commended. In what way is Pope Francis, by my standard, no better than Trump? My standard is one of peace and love, man.
At least you're being honest about Trump. You're a one issue voter at this election. Whoever blusters the most about illegal immigration will get your vote. Presumably making these immigrants citizens will not solve the problem. Nothing other than deportation of millions of people is a solution. Fair enough. Every country has a right to choose who can and cannot be a citizen, but the least one can do is ask why so many Mexicans want to come to America. The fact that this mass deportation will never happen is seemingly irrelevant, whether Trump wins or doesn't. And all the deranged nonsense Trump spews out is also seemingly irrelevant.
If you guys posted nice things about any of the other Republican candidates, or Hillary for that matter, I'd say pretty much the same stuff, but for some reason you guys have fallen in love with a man who claims the unemployment rate is 42% and America is "Greece on steroids". And this in a leading MMT blog! Usually, a man like this would be denounced as an economic cretin and buffoon, but silence reigns supreme when that man is Trump.
MRW, thanks for that. Superb!
John,
Trump has detailed how the 'wall' will come about.
"Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore."
So either Mexico builds a wall, or they get hit with the mother of all tariffs. Either way works. Another good one would be to revoke the central bank of Mexico's access to the Federal Reserve and all USD bank accounts held in Mexico, or impose capital controls on conversions to the Mexican Peso.
You may not agree with the plan, and I don't for sure. But at least he has a plan.
Neil,
NAFTA is a treaty. Treaties trumps domestic laws in the US. There is nothing Trump can do without the treaty being rewritten with the involvement of both Canada and Mexico. The movement of nationals among the three countries is currently carved in stone.
Neil,
No "USD bank accounts [are] held in Mexico.” They’re all in the Federal Reserve. USD vault cash might be in banks there, but not USD bank accounts.
John,
Trump is doing us all a service. What he’s doing to the Republican party is so fucking delicious, I can’t stand it. I remember him on the Don Imus Show in NYC during the 90s. He was a raving Democrat with centrist views.
Read this: "Trump: The Enemy of My Enemies” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/trump-the-enemy-of-my-ene_b_9260758.html
Now, listen to the last two minutes of Stephen Cohen with John Batchelor during their weekly radio show this week (the show is well worth listening to, BBC-ish à la the 1970s before Victor Rothschild got the BBC Chairman to sack its high-regarded Director in 1989 and destroy its objectivity). Cohen is the eminence grise of Russian analysts, imo, and a bottomline realist. He is also the husband of the The Nation’s publisher and part-owner, Katrina vanden Heuvel. The Nation is considered a lefty publication in this country, so Cohen’s public statement was remarkable.
https://audioboom.com/boos/4191433-nato-war-warning-on-the-turkish-frontier-stephen-f-cohen-eastwestaccord-com?t=0
If I were you, I would reserve judgment, sit back, and enjoy the show. Get a beer. I think this guy is a lot more clever than you give him credit for. I could be 1000% off, but after eight months I’ve changed my tune about him. And it wasn’t a 180. It was 1080 degrees: 6X.
@Mal
I think your criticism of the pope is off base frankly
One can certainly point to the Catholic church as a hypocrite for much of history but not this current pope. Sure he still resides in a walled city with enormous protection but he didn't build it and in fact has made his own personal residence much more austere than previous popes. This guy is different in a good way. Im not catholic any more but this guy, unlike Blankfein, is "doing gods work".... to the best of his abilities.
Did he pick a fight with Trump when he shouldn't have? Probably... but he is right about bridges vs walls.
"NAFTA is a treaty. Treaties trumps domestic laws in the US"
MRW, not sure this holds in practice. There is no law w/o enforcement, so this will only hold true as long as the imbecile politicians in US want to make it a reality. The only nation capable of enforcing NAFTA on other nations is the US, as they seek the USD reserves insanely (again, an other error of the politicians and economists), but the other way around, what is Mexico goign to do, push more immigrants through the border? It's possible to use demographics as a powerful weapon (see Turkey...) but the question is if the other nations really have any interest at all to hold NAFTA alive (hence not enforcing it).
International treaties are always the weakest link in the chain of power because they have to align with the interest of the national elites. Do you remember the Molotov-Ribenntrop pact?
"NAFTA is a treaty. Treaties trumps domestic laws in the US. "
You sure about that?
"Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent."
Neil,
"NAFTA is a treaty. Treaties trumps domestic laws in the US. "
You sure about that?”
Oh, jesus, Neil, don’t make me look up this shit at this hour of the night.
Without going into a big yammer-yammer, I invoked a treaty rule in a court 18 months ago here as the basis of my actions and produced a copy of the treaty to justify my actions. The Judge (and prosecutor) to my surprise said Well that settles it and dropped the case. Then the Judge spent ten minutes explaining for the record that, as he said, and I quote, “In the US, an international treaty trumps US domestic law, which is why an international treaty that the US signs requires a 2/3 vote of the full US Senate” to (I paraphrase) establish it. I can’t remember that one word. He used another word that was legalistic, and I can’t remember it The Judge used the words 'trumps US domestic law'.
I don’t know about Bush unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty, but what was the nature of the “required” business? Was the condition of being able to withdraw from it, was the "the required notice of intent,” or Get Out of Jail clause, part of the treaty?
I know the same things apply to tax treaties. US domestic law cannot alter a tax treaty agreement between the US and another country after it’s been agreed to. Not unless it’s gone thru Congress. Changing NAFTA would take an act of Congress. Trump can’t change it by Executive Order. A US President doesn’t have that power.
"A US President doesn’t have that power.” It’s in the Constitution, IIRC.
As John has been labelled a ferner and therefore has no standing to express an opinion on murka, I as a U.S. citizen will affirm and certify all he has written.
John, you are now legally empowered to write things about other countries.
Article VI states all treaties made under authority of the United States shall be supreme law.
I’m going to bed. Will catch this conversation later.
Well if Trump gets his mandate his GOP Congress will have to follow... he could end up a "kingmaker" as far as GOP congress... iow if you cross him, he'll destroy you and campaign against you in the Primary... he certainly seems capable of that...
I dont think Trump is thinking he can do all of this on "Day 1" ... he'll have to change a lot of laws in this area and others ...
Dems should help him as it would be viewed as pro-labor perhaps...
"and said that he would give them to him if he would fall down and worship him."
You have to remember that EVERYTHING that thing says is a lie...
"for there is no truth in him" John 8:44
That thing has no such authority it is claiming ... WE DO... its manifest via democracy... dont believe him...
A couple things to add:
Anyone anywhere obviously can have an opinion. I can't stop that nor would I. But I live in and directly experience the country we're discussing here, which is being affected by legal and illegal immigration.
I also don't give a damn which country the immigration flood is originating from. It could be coming from England or Germany (my two nationalities) and I would feel just as strongly as I do now regarding it.
I am primarily single issue this election cycle but our horrid trade record bothers me nearly as much. Trump wins me there too. He might not be able to unilaterally undo the damage done to our nation vis a vis these deals but he sure as hell isn't afraid to try unlike most of the others running.
I voted for Obama twice. Got fooled by so called liberals who claim they work for the little guy. No more. My whole M.O. is about helping the little guy whether they be black, yellow, brown or white.
Righteous Mal...
News out of Poland:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/18/polish-magazines-islamic-of-europe-cover-sparks-outrage
Pretty graphic.... right on the rise over there....
MRW, there is a good deal in what you say: grab a beer and enjoy the show. Trump is destroying the GOP from within. He may even be a sleeper cell planted by the Democrats. My main point is that so many really sharp observers here at MNE give Trump a pass, no matter what he says. None of the other candidate are accorded the same privilege.
Malmo, I genuinely feel for anyone who sees what you're seeing, whether in the US or in the much worse case of refugees fleeing to southern Europe. It's a bad situation for all involved. The issue is how to remedy it in a humane and effective way so that it doesn't recur. The only way to do that is to ensure that the Mexican economy is healthy enough so that people choose to stay. NAFTA has screwed Mexico and it has screwed many American workers. The absolute minimum would be to repeal NAFTA. That would be more effective than building a wall.
Neil, you're quite right. Trump does have a plan. But then every candidate has a plan. It's the effectiveness of the plan that is the issue. You've helpfully quoted Trump. Does anyone really believe Trump will be able to do any of this? Be realistic.
He may as well say that he's going to build a new planet, no doubt called Trumpiter. Obviously, Trumpiter will be bigger and better than planet earth. He's smart, earthlings are stupid, especially the God who built planet earth. Trump's got good negotiators who'll build it. It'll be made out of minerals found on distant asteroids. Carl Icahn and Warren Buffett will fly there and personally mine the asteroids themselves, along with Ben Affleck and Steve Buscemi, who've shown their effectiveness before at this kind of work. Unfortunately, Bruce Willis isn't available. As a good patriot, he gave his life for America by sitting on a nuclear bomb. Icahn and Buffett are smart at business, so they'll make good astronauts and mining engineers. Icahn and Buffett won't make it back to earth, nor will Affleck and Buscemi. But as patriotic Americans they're willing to give there lives for America and Trumpiter. Negotiators as good as them will need to be found to take there place. So Carnegie and Rockefeller will be reanimated with genetic engineering. What's not to like with this plan?
There is only one effective way to limit illegal immigration. The vast majority of immigrants come for munnie they get from jobs. Put extremely punitive fines on hiring illegals and make the third offense a felony, including corporate executives. Building walls isn't going to do it if American firms continue hiring illegals. This would also require denying illegal immigrants access to social services. Those here would either have to return to their countries voluntarily or they would eventually be discovered and deported. They already know that deportation involves months in holding cells, so a lot of them would just give up and go home to avoid that inconvenience.
I am not recommending this, but this is how to do it if one is really serious about addressing the problem.
The fly in this ointment is that American firms would throw a lot of munnie at politicians to defeat it, since they are the ones profiting from it.
Tom,
You say there is only one effective way to eliminate illegal immigration, yet you don't advocate it? That sounds like your an advocate for open borders. Probably you take this position because the low skilled labor influx hasn't affected your employment, no? Not sure what kind of liberal you are? Old school liberals who cared about American workers never would have taken your position. I know a lot of Country Club Republicans who would, however.
LMAO. Can't make this shit up:
Pope Francis Warns Of ‘Mexicanization’ Of Argentina Because Of Drug Trade
http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-francis-warns-mexicanization-argentina-because-drug-trade-1825086
You say there is only one effective way to eliminate illegal immigration, yet you don't advocate it? That sounds like your an advocate for open borders.
I am generally for managed solutions that deal with actual problems and consider alternatives. You know, the engineering approach.
So you don't consider illegal immigration a problem?
Pope Francis Warns Of ‘Mexicanization’ Of Argentina Because Of Drug Trade
I don't see this as far-fetched at all. It's not only an issue for Latin America but also North America. The War on Drugs has exacerbated it instead of solving it.
There's probably no practical way to deal with this sort of working within a framework of legalization instead of prohibition. It didn't work with booze and it isn't working with drugs.
The Mafia got its big break with Prohibition and became a sector of the US economy, which it still is. Drugs are also a huge factor in the gang epidemic.
Addressing drugs through law enforcement is not only not working, it is having an adverse impact on law enforcement, too.
It is also well-recognized that drug trafficking has been and still is a source of funding for insurgents, and there have been allegations of CIA involvement in it.
The way to end the profitability of the drug trade is to end prohibition.
And think of all the munnie governments can make taxing it, which is actually a big deal for governments that are currency users and depend on revenue. Now they are pouring munnie down the sink trying to push the river upstream.
So you don't consider illegal immigration a problem?
Yes, I do think that breaking laws is a problem because it degrades the law if not addressed. But one way to address this is to change laws that are not working because they conflict with the interests of large numbers of citizens and adversely affect international relations without adequate reason.
For example, a lot of the issues are moral issues father than factual, and there is disagreement over conceptions of morality involved. There are also misperceptions and distortions of factual matters.
But that doesn't imply either no immigration or trying to round up all the ~12 million undocumented people living in the US either.
I am not putting a policy solution forward, since that is not within my job description. The democratic way forward is to debate practical solutions that promote the general welfare and deal with relevant interests.
Shouting is not helping.
"So you don't consider illegal immigration a problem?"
My interpretation here is that high immigration reduces the political weight of low wage workers in several ways:
* First, immigrants simply cannot vote. Illegal immigrants will never be able to, and legal ones only when they become citizens.
* The percentage of low wage earners that vote is much lower than that of middle or upper wage earners. When people displaced by immigrants or offshoring sink from the middle or working class class to the underclass they have bigger worries than voting perhaps...
* Anyhow, the correlation between income and contributing to campaigns is even stronger than that between income and voting. And campaign contributors in effect do the nominating...
A large number of disenfranchised (by law) immigrants and disenfranchised (statistically) low wage earners is just about the perfect situation for employers and politicians.
That is exactly right. These people get treated like shit and can't do anything about it. Employers love it. Actually, one particularly egregious employer was busted not long ago in these parts and went to prison over it.
They get treated like shit? Sure, but they had a choice to come legally and they instead jumped to the front of the line illegally with blessings of course from employers who love to exploit and the politicians who front for them.
I'm not sure you answered the question, however. Is illegal immigration a problem? You seem to be saying, yes, for the illegal immigrants, but not for Americans in general.
Trump could state his intention to crack down on employers hiring illegals and that would be a lot more effective than building a ridiculous wall.
"These people get treated like shit and can't do anything about it. Employers love it. "
Your summary of the debate is reasonable, but leaves out a bit that stings: the distributional impact on voters is pretty much all that matters, or not.
Is it entirely out of charity that The Restaurant Association of America is totally in favour of lifting the incomes of the poor of the 3rd world by allowing them to immigrate to America in whatever numbers? Charity begins at home :)
The debate about immigration can be summarized even better than you did like this: immigration (like offshoring) have a sharply negative impact on some small groups, and a rather positive impact on most others.
The winners who can vote do vote and contribute to campaigns, the can vote don't vote as much and don't contribute to campaigns.
So the result is: posturing to fool those sore losers, and protection for the interests of the winners.
Something like effective employment enforcement is a major, grave step (send to jail American businessmen for improving their profits?) and will only be done if there is an overwhelming electoral advantage in it in terms of votes or campaign contributions.
Unless you can convince your God Donald Trump Malmo :)
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/13/nyregion/trump-says-he-didn-t-know-he-employed-illegal-aliens.html
"Donald J. Trump took the witness stand yesterday to deny seven-year-old charges that he knowingly used 200 undocumented workers to demolish the old Bonwit Teller building to make way for Trump Tower, the glittering centerpiece of his real-estate empire.
Testifying in a case that has survived years of legal challenges, Mr. Trump said he did not know the workers were undocumented and that the demolition in the summer of 1980 was delegated to a contractor, Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, which did all the hiring.
The lawsuit, by some members of Housewreckers Local 95, charges that Mr. Trump, desperate to meet deadlines on a vast project whose intricate financing was partly dependent upon them, overlooked the use of undocumented Polish immigrants, who allegedly worked round-the-clock and even slept at the site.
The lawsuit, being heard in United States District Court in Manhattan, pits Mr. Trump's word against those of union members and a labor consultant turned F.B.I. informant who claims he was a close Trump adviser.
Threats of Deportation Alleged
The union members, led by a retired demolition worker, Harry Diduck, charge that by using undocumented workers Mr. Trump avoided paying their pension fund. They say he should now pay $1 million, including interest.
They also contend that Kaszycki & Sons never paid the workers all they were owed, and that Trump subordinates threatened deportation when they tried to collect.
Mr. Trump was cool and confident in a case that comes to court just after he faced severe cash shortages in his real-estate and casino empire. He said he rarely visited the demolition site and knew little about its details.
But Daniel J. Sullivan, a labor consultant and sometime informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, testified that he advised Mr. Trump on the demolition and that the developer knew about the undocumented workers.
'I Think You Are Nuts'
By Mr. Sullivan's account, Mr. Trump called in a panic in the summer of 1980 and told him that the workers were slowing his project because of payment problems, and that they were even threatening to hang the Trump employee monitoring the demolition.
When Mr. Trump told him of the undocumented workers, Mr. Sullivan said he responded: ''I think you are nuts. You are here negotiating a lease in Atlantic City for a casino license and you are telling me you have got illegal employees on the job.''
Mr. Trump testified that Kaszycki & Sons fell behind, and that he only vaguely recalled complaints of payment problems. He said he did not remember threats against an employee."
I've never seen more dancing around a question so I'll ask again in slightly different ways.
Is illegal immigration in any way a problem? Should the US simply have open borders and be done with the notion of such an animal as illegal immigration?
"Should the US simply have open borders and be done with the notion of such an animal as illegal immigration"
Well, in terms of physical capacity, a population of a 1.3 billion in the USA is entirely feasible without strain, and probably 2 billion is not a big deal either. From an European point of view the USA is a huge empty and underutilized place, never mind from an Indian or Chinese one.
In economic terms, an extra billion immigrants would mean a *fabulous* time for the majority of today's citizens *given the correct policy* who own real estate or who are business owners or have government or government licensed jobs.
About 200m out of the existing 300m would be at the top of a much larger pyramid, where their assets (from real estate to government licences) would be far more valuable in an economy where demand has suddendly expanded several times.
To them would go the benefit of having several hundred million destitute rightless immigrants to compete for jobs, for the opportunity to be servants or workers, and paying dearly for being accomodated a dozen to a room.
"Is illegal immigration in any way a problem?"
For some it is not, for others it is. It depends on who benefits from the policy obviously.
Thanks for the response.
"Thanks for the response."
Not very detailed though is it.
The rentier dream of the italo/irish/jewish middle aged and older voters is to retire in splendour to a hilltop mansion on a luxurious lifestyle fueled by massive home price and share price capital gains. That is the Greenspan bait.
Those could not care less about wages, indeed as future capital gain rentiers they strongly support policies to reduce wages, as these will be a cost to them. Once retired to luxury, they will want the cheapest nurses, gardeners, maids they can find.
Illegal immigration and job competition from coloured and women was severely handled when the irish/jewish/italian voter blocks considered themselves working class. Now that they regard themselves as upper class rentiers they just moan that good help is hard to find today.
Malmo, you deserve a straight answer to a straight question. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. It is a problem for the immigrants themselves (these are vulnerable people subject to exploitation), and it can be a very serious problem for the lower working and middle class of the country of arrival.
But like many public policy issues the answer is not to be confused with the solution. So what to do? A good response was that given by Bob: go after the employers. That would be a far more sensible approach. You could also do something about the so-called "trade agreements". There must be a hundred and one ways to make Mexico more appealing than it currently is within the current general economic climate. Nothing altogether radical would be necessary. We're not talking Marxist-Leninist revolution.
You can say that giving citizenship to illegal immigrants is undermining the law, and strictly speaking it is. These people came out of desperation, not to spit on the law. If this desperation is not addressed, the result is clear: more exploited illegal immigrants who may make the living conditions of working Americans more dire.
In principle there is nothing wrong with worldwide open borders. In practice, in the world we live in, it is not feasible and will be subject to the same disaster neoliberalism has brought. On the whole, I like everybody. Belgians, Australians and white South Africans are another matter.
You can lay the immigration problem bang smack at the feet of the Clinton administration, specifically Rahm Emanuel, the most destructive admin in the last 40 years, IMHO.
Read John Nichols great March 2002 article, Trade Fights. This archival version has some crazy large-font sidebar-y thing that goes on for two pages at the start. Scroll down to the real article.
http://www.thenation.com/article/trade-fights/
If you’re pressed for time, just read the first and last paragraphs. The in-between stuff is about shit that’s 14 years old.
I remember myself as the only person I knew bitching about NAFTA then; I lost a lot of good friends who tired of my constant carping.
They rammed NAFTA thru in late 1993. US businesses dumped their US workers and raced to Mexico in 1994 because wages were $2.22/hr. Companies like Archer Daniels Midland, an agricultural conglomerate, DESTROYED the mom-and-pop farms that sustained the northern half of Mexico. Destroyed the economy, which was sustaining its own people, there was food on the table.
Goldman Sachs took over the Mexican govt government and finances, and invested the Mexican govt heavily into derivatives, and promptly bankrupted the country in 1995.
The peso lost 1/2 its value and Goldman Sachs, et al, got Clinton to cover GS’s losses, but not Mexico’s. [Doing all this from memory after 20 yrs.] No one was paying attention. Everything then was about Clinton’s dick.
Emanuel left govt for Wall Street, then wrote weekly op-eds in the Wall Street Journal for one year—every goddam week—begging the US to change China to “Most Favored Status” via the WTO.
That came thru in 1999.
The US businesses dumped Mexico and raced to China because wages there were $0.60/hr., DEVASTATING Mexican workers. [China made them take a domestic partner at 51% and sign away their proprietary technology in five-year deals that were first over in 2004. Our einsteins didn’t care. They did it.]
That’s when the onslaught to find work in the US started. There was real starvation in northern Mexico, or don’t any of you remember. What would you do if your kids and wife were starving?
We brought this on ourselves.
But the worse immigration problem was with white-collar workers, which started in 1993. Actually, it was outsourcing.
The tech companies in CA moved their operations to India and China, claiming our immigration laws didn’t let them hire here. India was the preferred country because US businesses didn’t have to fork over 51% of their businesses to foreigners in order to operate there. India had great programmers; their math education is vastly superior to ours starting in high schools.
China took all our manufacturing work.
That’s where the real problem is.
We gave the country away. We let Clinton and Bush Jr give the fucking country away with no thought to the consequences, and then changed the tax laws to hide it by allowing US businesses to file their overseas operations as if they were operating domestically. They could then claim they were adding jobs. Shareholders and upper management benefited from $0.60/hr.; bonuses soared, and options flourished.
I have minimum sympathy for the “illegal immigration” problem as its expressed here. A lot of huffing and puffing about landscaping and dishwashing jobs without identifying the sources of the problems and the history that produced them. Tom’s right. Change the laws. Congress can pass laws for Israel in four days; why not this?
We did this. We DID THIS TO OURSELVES.
And Trump is 4000% right that Bush lied us into a war, diverting trillions that should have been spent on the American people and this economy, and he’s 4000% correct that Obama’s trade deals are going to destroy this country even more.
So for me, he’s a breath of fucking fresh air. And if he wins the nomination and then the presidency, I am more than willing to have four years of the most entertaining blunt off-the-wall president while he calls a spade a digger, and cores DC’s ass.
Mexico had a currency peg if I remember.
Treaties do not trump domestic federal law in the US. Acts of Congress are on the same level as treaties & both are subordinate to the US constitution. It is uncontroversial that the US Congress can repeal treaties. Of course, this might not remove any international obligation, but given current realities, in practice this is meaningless. In practice, the president also has much of this power - Carter broke treaties with Taiwan / Republic of China when he dealt with the (People's Republic of) China, the Supremes declined to intervene by considering it a "political question", which usually kills an issue.
Wikipedia's Treaty Clause is good on this.
idk if you guys saw this the other day they hit Trump with a question where the current second rate incompetent USD zombie president of Mexico was quoted as saying they will never build the wall or even pay for it and Trump just paused a few seconds and said... "Tell him the wall just got 10 feet higher!"
LOL!!!!!! God I hope he wins.....
I'm not sure you answered the question, however. Is illegal immigration a problem? You seem to be saying, yes, for the illegal immigrants, but not for Americans in general.
As I said, "illegal" is out because "illegal." Immigration is irrelevant to it.
The US needs to have an immigration quota that satisfies the interests of citizens expressed through the ballot box and then the country has to live with that until the law is changed. The way to handle undocumented workers is at the source, that is, the employers. Start putting employers in prison on felony charges and the problem will go away quickly.
But none of this is going to happen until the country gets serious about addressing a practical solution. That hasn't happened yet. Trump is just demagoguing it, as are most of the others on both sides.
Should the US simply have open borders and be done with the notion of such an animal as illegal immigration?
What made the US great was federalism and limited state sovereignty. In an ideal world, there would be no national borders that inhibited exchange of goods, financial flows or mobility of labor.
This is doable in the Western hemisphere. The first step for the US to take should be Canada. This would prepare the country to do the same for the South. It would have to a a carefully managed process but it not only could be done but it would be extremely beneficial for all involved and for the whole world.
I look at this as an area of opportunity rather than as a problem area.
"We gave the country away. We let Clinton and Bush Jr give the fucking country away with no thought to the consequences, and then changed the tax laws to hide it by allowing US businesses to file their overseas operations as if they were operating domestically. They could then claim they were adding jobs. Shareholders and upper management benefited from $0.60/hr.; bonuses soared, and options flourished."
Right. Part of this is the "export led growth" BS pushed by economists.
It is a bit as if instead of several hundred million indians or chinese emigrating to the USA, a few states or regions of India or China were annexed by it as territories at the same time as a few dozen million latinos come streaming in.
It was absolutely fantastic to be an asset/business owner when the potential markets are growing so much thanks to the integration of large ex-socialist countries into the western system.
"I look at this as an area of opportunity rather than as a problem area."
Here is a good post by N. Wilson on how to achieve open borders pragmatically. Immigration is restricted to countries with job guarantee and importantly universal healthcare etc. So third world countries like the USA would not be allowed in :)
http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/10/how-labour-can-solve-immigration.html
In particular I like Neil's comment:
"The whole concept is driven by belief in an ideal - that nobody should be constrained by where they were born.
That is the essence of one world idealism and is the heart of the whole love affair with the idea of the EU and that permeates the Green party manifesto and that of the Labour party and Liberal Democrats.
And it is a great ideal, but unfortunately we have to deal with the real world as it is.
Hence the pragmatic suggestion that open borders is restricted to countries with the same social infrastructure as you.
If sanctions work, then this is a sanction that says 'improve your social infrastructure and you can join us'."
MRW, excellent, unarguable stuff. And now it'll get even worse with TTP and all the other neoliberal "trade" agreements being cooked up. The illegal immigrants will get the brunt of it, not the vested interests pushing to make working Americans lives as bad as possible.
In fact the legal migrants may be in for some rough treatment: if an Indian can do the work of a middle class accountant/lawyer/surgeon/engineer for perhaps half the price (and that's on the basis that they have to be resident in the US to do the job), the middle class are going to go the same way as the working class.
The moral of the story is the one found in Smith and Marx: it's all about class. If the working class don't see themselves in that way and fall for nationalist demagoguery then they're toast. The nationalist demagogues are neoliberals to the core.
"Start putting employers in prison on felony charges and the problem will go away quickly."
The other one is making visas expensive and being unblocked only if there is shown to be genuine need like the central bank "lender of last resort."
From N. Wilson post:
"A rational immigration policy is one that concentrates on high value individuals and one that makes those visas very expensive for the businesses involved. That way business is more likely to choose to improve the capital stock of the nation rather than going straight for the 'nick somebody else from abroad' option.
Yes we need the release valve of immigration to get around persistent shortages on the supply side in high value services, but business should never profit if they use that option. The value should really accrue to the state to offset the additional social costs of maintaining a higher population."
This is the other one I got that quote from;
http://www.3spoken.co.uk/2014/06/how-immigration-affects-uk-economy.html
"Immigration is restricted to countries with job guarantee and importantly universal healthcare"
Sorry *open borders* is. Everyone else goes through a visa. Countries have to treat their poor as well as you to get in as a good starting point?
John, don’t start me on TPP, TTIP, and the TISI (?). I’ll be here till midnight.
A couple things:
A borderless world will not happen. on the other hand, if no one is left on the planet then...
The bad guys are not those who dislike our lax immigration enforcement. The bad guys are the ones who encourage the lack of enforcement, especially subsequent to 9/11.
Let the people through their representatives finally have a say in where we go from here now that the cat is out of the bag. If the people say amnesty then so be it. If it's somewhere in between the so be it. If it's deport and then get back in line then I'm good with it. Until then let's enforce the goddamn laws already on the books.
More fear of immigration. Why restrict immigration to countries with a JG & healthcare? Sure, any country can do what it wants, but maybe there should be a reason for such a policy? Nobody has presented a serious one, because there isn't a serious one. What is so great about a policy of "generosity" to people who are already well off? If people are such scaredy-cats, why not just close immigration completely & let President / Prime Minister Trump build his wall? At least God-King Trump's plan has the virtue of simplicity.
My own country, the USA obviously has nothing to fear from completely open immigration with a JG. The problem with proposals about restricting immigration is not in the proposals themselves, but the belief that restrictions are needed indicates a lack of understanding, or realistic application of theoretical understanding to practice. They appear to be based on ignorance & silly, imaginary fears which have a way of gnawing away at & eventually reversing sound thinking.
Most of the world had open immigration until the last century. Unless it was a catastrophe in itself - an armed invasion, like that of Europe to the Americas, it never caused a catastrophe. There is not the slightest reason to believe that people will move around much more. They don't now. The limiting factor to immigration is people's desire and ability to uproot themselves, not irrelevancies like transportation or communication technology. The real relevant improvements were mostly railroads & telegraph/telephone/radio - 100+ years old. Better, safer ships & airplanes didn't add all that much, not on the enormous scale necessary for the widespread fearmongering.
My objection to this kind of argument is that thinking this way indicates that people still think of the JG, of public employment as "a benefit" that nations can only afford to dole out a limited amount of. Of course if a billion people moved to the USA tomorrow, that would be the right way to look at it. But this is not going to happen. With any realistic numbers - under any assumptions which are not ludicrous - open immigration to a country like the USA with a JG is not a "benefit", not "charity" that the USA doles out.
The JG is a job. It is not a benefit. The benefit goes the other way.
Calgacus,
Opposition to a limitless stream of immigrants isn't simply about money/jobs. The culture people reside in and desire to maintain also plays a legitimate role.
Sure, MG. I'm fine with that. If the indigenes of the USA or Madagascar or Iceland want to preserve their culture, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with Pharaoh Trumpthedonaldtep building a wall to preserve culture. But that is not the usual objection, which is economic, and angled against the JG/full employment/MMT/FF.
Opposition to a limitless stream of immigrants isn't simply about money/jobs. The culture people reside in and desire to maintain also plays a legitimate role
Right. It is mostly about biases. This is another paradox of liberalism, a fundamental tenet of which is, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — The Declaration of Independence."
Understood was the implicit "excepting people of color."
"Pharaoh Trumpthedonaldtep”
ROTFLMAO.
"But that is not the usual objection, which is economic"
90% of the issue is simply labor arbitrage.
Illegal or legal immigrants from countries with equivalent costs of living and wages are almost never the issue; the issue is almost entirely immigration, legal and especially illegal, from countries with much lower costs of living and wages.
Most other discussions of the issue like the above are clever misdirections.
"But that is not the usual objection, which is economic"
And it's become pretty transparent that the economic "argument" is sophistry to conceal the power relationships and the actual agenda.
Even FF and MMT leaves the power structure in place and claim it doesn't matter as long as they "tax" themselves by saving.
There is no economic solution without addressing the social and political issues along with the economic ones.
Bernie is trying to do that, but ineptly. Trump is, too, in a different way entirely. But both are populist reactions to the social, political and economic status quo.
"angled against the JG/full employment/MMT/FF."
The U.S. may be able to have open borders. But I think unlimited immigration of unskilled workers makes implementing a full Job Guarantee for residents of the UK more difficult.
Random, the issue is that US citizens don’t have jobs. Only 62% of the workforce is employed. People are hurting. Obama touts 5.x% unemployment and thinks his work is over. Thump-thump-bang-bang-I-solved-the-problem. 52% of young black men can’t find jobs. People with doctorates are driving cabs and called “employed.”
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the problem.
MRW,
That Paul Slansky article is just about the most perfect piece of political journalism. Gonna have to add him to my burgeoning reading list of American journalists and commentators.
Slansky doesn't wimp out or is mealy mouthed about it: Trump is a deranged cretin but he's doing America and the world a favour by burning down the Republican church of moneyed interests, neocons, mad Christian Mullahs, golf club Bircher types (or WISIS, to use Trevor Noah's hilarious term).
Since he's not going to be President, perhaps I should support him for as long as possible and stop posting truthful things about him! It'll be like all those lefties who supported McCarthy's hunt for commies in the State Department and Pentagon. The Senator from the state of Loony Tunes started to believe the propaganda about commies being concocted by State and Pentagon to scare the American people senseless! That reminds me, I have to reread Frankenstein.
Perhaps I have been too subtle.
The point is this. Membership of some Clubs like Club UK or Club France is obviously a valued good, as people are willing to pay membership fees and even risk their life to get it, and so people in certain Clubs have an unfair advantage over others.
And the most obvious merit to evaluate is substantial reciprocity of value: reciprocity as in recognizing membership of other clubs as they recognize yours, and substantial as in the value of the membership is somewhat equivalent.
For example, membership of Club Manchester gives automatic membership of Club Bristol, and viceversa, as members of those clubs obviously find memberships broadly of equivalent value, and the ability to swap memberships is convenient to both.
So for example I cannot understand why Club UK and Club USA and Club Japan still have reciprocal immigration limits, while it is very understandable why Club UK and Club France and Club Germany and Club Spain etc all recognize each other's membership by jointly belonging to the EU Club federation.
While it is hard for me to understand why Club UK should give automatic membership to any member of Club India for example.
In part because Club India is far from reciprocating the favour: it is exceptionally difficult to get a work visa for India, and Indian security forces routinely round up illegal immigrant and throw them out rather brutally as they steal jobs from Indians.
But in part because Club India membership is not nearly as valuable as Club UK membership, at least so far. While instead 1m members of Club UK live in Club Spain and several hundred thousand in other Clubs in the EU Club federation, because those Clubs are of comparable income, living standards, costs and benefits.
Sure, the ability of the rich members of Club UK to employ members of Club India at much lower wages than other members of Club UK (or Club Germany or Club Spain) is of benefit to them, but not to other members of Club UK, who don't have the substantial reciprocal opportunity to find well paid employment in Club India.
Conversely, the labour markets of CLub UK and Club France are broadly similar, just like the labour markets of club Manchester and Club Bristol, so there is no grossly unfair advantage to employers from one Club hiring from the other Club, as the employees of that Club can also find jobs in the other Club, at least in a broad balance; sure at any one time one market may favour one or another side, but broadly they are of equal opportunity to both.
Nothing like that parity of opportunity between Club UK and Club India, or Club USA and Club Mexico (who also have ferocious immigration controls and throw out very brutally illegal immigrants who steal jobs from Mexicans).
Reciprocity, both within and among Clubs, is mostly political of course but it is an important economic concept. For example it makes markets more competitive when access to people by capitalists is controlled.
Resentment is a palpable force. Why do you think the Pro-Israel lobbies go to such efforts to cover up, and re-characterize, the annual stipends we give the 5 mill Jews in Israel?
It’s only natural that people are going to resent foreigners coming in here and getting aid they don’t get. It doesn’t even matter if it’s irrational.
Its 'in kind' stipends im sure MRW, not USD balances.... tanks, planes, etc....
Random, Sir James Goldsmith explains the problem much better. Here’s his interview with Charlie Rose in November 1994 that is still prescient today. Goldsmith curiously contracted the world’s fastest working cancer two years later and was dead within 8 months. The elites were not amused by his appearances before Congress either.
If you don’t have time, just watch the first 12 minutes. If you want a window into the spectacular arrogance of Clinton’s admin then, keep going and watch Goldsmith eviscerate Laura Tyson, chair of Clinton’s economic advisors. (Tyson claims they added 5 million jobs to the economy. . . . yeah, if you count the outsourced jobs as American!)
I feel it’s worth it to watch the entire hour, and the end of the interview is a hoot.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD255EEFDD0D9F07E
Matt, $3.5 billion USD end of January every year. No mileposts to meet, like other foreign aid. Some military sites say that with all the other stuff added during the year--military contracts and the like--the real bennies are $50 bill/year, but I haven't checked. Remember those humvees in Iraq that couldn’t protect our troops from roadside IEDs, not bombs? Israeli humvees with major design flaws, and no armored plates underneath like the ones we used to manufacture in Phoenix.—Jane’s Defense Weekly.
The humvees were a $6 billion total purchase, according to Jane’s.
Sorry. Used in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
"Even FF and MMT leaves the power structure in place and claim it doesn't matter as long as they "tax" themselves by saving."
It doesn't matter *in terms of deploying resources at this moment*
Change the campaign finance laws.
"It’s only natural that people are going to resent foreigners"
The open borders argument is that workers should continue to suffer large losses now, and hope that at some point somewhere they get something to compensate for that? Isn’t that selling snake oil?
They need to change its flow: to protect the jobs and salary levels of workers *who vote in your nation* and thereafter to give support to the poor and unemployed third world ones, instead of increasing the jobs and salary levels of third world workers and thereafter offer help to their workers.
The blunt story is that unrestricted labor arbitrage in a world in which the global labor/capital ratio has effectively doubled has zero chances of resulting in anything but the utter pauperization of the first world workers resulting in a big boost to third world workers and first world employers.
Here’s the Goldsmith interview in one piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s
1994 TV ad at beginning.
Goldsmith sounds like a combo of Warren Mosler, Trump, and Mike Norman's talk at Columbia Law School.
Random,
"the utter pauperization of the first world workers resulting in a big boost to third world workers and first world employers.”
Or as Goldsmith says at the end of his interview, “The poor in the rich countries are subsidizing the rich in the poor countries."
Excellent interview.
MRW:It’s only natural that people are going to resent foreigners coming in here and getting aid they don’t get. It doesn’t even matter if it’s irrational.
Doesn't seem irrational to me. But who is proposing such a thing?
Random:The open borders argument is that workers should continue to suffer large losses now, and hope that at some point somewhere they get something to compensate for that? Isn’t that selling snake oil?
Sure, but I don't see how these comments are relevant to the JG & MMT. I'm not sure if they were meant to be. I would welcome much less subtlety, more bluntness. WIll respond to the "club" argument tomorrow.
Tom:"Even FF and MMT leaves the power structure in place
Not true. They, in particular the JG - kill the predatory power structure - but only good economists like MMTers, Keynes, Kalecki & Marx - and the predatory power elite - seem to understand that.
Tom:"Even FF and MMT leaves the power structure in place
Not true. They, in particular the JG - kill the predatory power structure - but only good economists like MMTers, Keynes, Kalecki & Marx - and the predatory power elite - seem to understand that.
Agree that the power structure is weakened but it is not fatally weakened, It took a while to begin reversing the New Deal but now that is on the way to be being completed.
Without terminating the power structure, they'll always be back. As I understand Marx, he would agree with that.
Post a Comment