Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


No, I’ll take responsibility for your confusion here; that map isn’t showing the the net loss/gain of every county at once.

It’s showing the net loss or gain of people to/from one county; Maricopa County Arizona.

Ergo; were able to track, almost to a man, the movement of people from one county to the next.

Thanks to this tool: The Census Flows Mapper

Here’s Cook County BTW:

And here’s the whole country projected for 2010-2020

As you can see, plenty of rural counties have either stagnant or falling populations.

Meanwhile, the majority of the unemployed are in the urban centers.

So long as the unemployed in the cities have no desire to move out to rural areas to find work, rural areas will continue to need migrants to fill their labor shortages.

If you deny migrants that work, the consequence will be that we import our food. America, for the first time ever, will become a net-importer of its crops and meat.

We’re already borderline as it is.


None of which answers either of my questions.


Fascinating tool. Thanks for referencing it.


Uh… Dave? Both of your questions are answered in the Cook County chart. That little chart states precisely what years the data covers, and if you do the math, you can find out what the net-outflow from Cook County has been.

For the 4 years it covers, net outflow has been 25,757 people.


You’re Welcome. B)


The situation Conservatives cannot ignore.

America has had three immigration system that have worked:

  1. The system from 1780 to the 1880s, where people were allowed to come & go as they pleased, with periodic interventions by the States.

  2. The Ellis island System from the 1890s to 1914, where the Federal Government imposed a minimalist framework, allowing 97% of people in.

  3. The Bracero system as managed by Eisenhower, where they facilitated migrant labor, overseeing the decline of illegal immigration by 95%, while legal immigration more than tripled.

These are the only systems that have been succesful. The national origin system we imposed in the 1920s, and the system we’ve had since 1962, both incrementally spurned on illegal immigration and created gaps of lawlessness.

Writing draconian rules, while relying on strict enforcement, and byzantine paper work systems that move at a glacial pace, is a recipe for disaster.

If the Federal Government wants to continue to be the rightful steward of Immigration, it needs to recognize the relevant forces within human society that it shares that power with, and to build its systems accordingly. Ergo, reflect on why the past systems worked, and why the other two have not. Otherwise, the only choice is to defer to the States (de facto or de jure), whom have already proven that they handle this responsibility better on the whole.


BS on a shingle, AS. You don’t have the LEAST clue what you’re talking about here. You can’t “solve” illegal immigration by making it “legal” by fiat. THAT’S what Eisenhower did and why “legal” immigration “more than tripled.”


He did, people followed the law.

People in Mexico would sign up on a list to come here, the Government would match them to an employer, and then at the appointed time, would bring them over. Then also at the appointed time, they went back.

Precisely how a guest-worker system should work. Who could possibly have a problem with a system like this?

Turns out, if you treat people fairly, give them clear expectations, and don’t try to obstruct labor demand, everyone follows the rules.


Even your phrasing of this reveals your misconceptions, You speak of the ‘Federal Government’ and the ‘relevant forces within human society that it shares power with’ as two separate distinct entities. They are not, they are one and the same ‘We the People’ in the two incarnations as ‘the body politic’ and ‘their elected representatives’. Our disputes arise when these two incarnations are out of sync so we have periodic elections to reflect current situations not historical anecdotes. Sometimes we get it wrong but elections have consequences. ‘We the People’ spoke in the 2016 election and We want a modern wall, an end to the open door immigration system, an end to Obamacare, lower taxes, a nonpartisan justice system and the swamp drained. Woe unto to those who don’t deliver.


Much as I like the concept of such accountability, I’m not holding my breath.


Where is the sociology?

Where is the economics?

Both of these domains influence the subject matter at hand; where is your inclusion of them? You keep trying to boil it down to politics, when politics is far downstream of everything else.

You’ve told me multiple times you don’t think history is relevant, and yet, I can find multiple instances of nativist movements, pushing back against immigrant movements from the Italians, to the Chinese, to the Irish, to the Germans.

How do you know you’re not falling into the same pattern? We all know that history repeats; why are you assuming that you are above its cycles here?

That’s a progressive notion of Government. The Founders did not conflate the Government and “We the people” as being the same, hence why they sought to stagnate power between the branches, and the Federal vs the States.

If it could be assured that the Government was comprised of true representatives of the people, there’d be no reason to create competitive entities within it.

Further, the Founders did not see politics as the true decider of society. Rather they sought to promote duties, that people would voluntarily take upon themselves, and live out through communal and fraternal organization.

It was that framework that made Alex de Tocqueville remark at us as an “exception”. Our tendency to deal with societal matters, not through government, but through emergent organization.


Please note, AS: This is NOT the late 19th or early 20th Century. We didn’t have MASSIVE amounts of heroin, cocaine, pot, methamphetamines, etc. floating across our southern border virtually unhindered, just as one example. For another, we didn’t have millions sneaking in for government BENEFITS instead of looking for honest work back in those days. Take a look at Jas.Lott’s study of illegal immigration in Arizona if you can find the time to tear yourself away from CNN or MSNBC long enough to read a scholarly treatise. For decades, we’ve been treated to the Cato Institute’s BS “studies” which routinely conflate illegal and legal immigration to make the criminality of illegals seem to be less startling than it really is. Arizona is one of the few States that differentiates between legal and illegal immigrants in their criminal justice system, though Flake and McCain routinely IGNORE the lessons to be learned by studying the data. Illegals are 149% more likely to commit MURDER than EITHER American citizens OR legal immigrants, just as one example.


This argument doesn’t hold water.

Modern countries today, have immigration rates 2x, 4x of what we do, with none of the perceived consequence you claim this creates.

Tiny countries/city states, surrounded by the 3rd world, surrounded by communists, surrounded by Muslims, surrounded by Euro-Socialists, who somehow don’t “fall over” by letting those people in.

They let more people in, they have higher marks of free trade, and they’re better off than we are.

You don’t have a counter for this Dave. Their experience, countries who are microcosms of what we used to be, debunks your entire argument.

Free trade works, a high immigration rate works. No one is left behind. Turns out, Freedom is good economic policy, to the surprise of none of those who believe in Western philosphical traditions.

Uh, Dave? I already debunked this, and so has CATO:

And his name is Lott, not “Locke”.

Lott admits outright that legal immigrants are conflated in his estimates. It’s also known that the prison population itself is inflated, with as many as 7-8,000 people being on the rosters, that aren’t actually there anymore. Controlling for those two aspects (and throwing in an illegal population total by Pew), gives you the figures above.


BS. Look at what unregulated immigration is doing to Europe! Your meme falls apart when you look at REALITY. BTW, Cato is an open-borders promoter of the first water.


It’s not unregulated; Europeans have highly regulated markets, where immigrants aren’t allowed to work much of anywhere.

Most aren’t immigrants in any real sense; they’re more like internment camp visitors.

They’ll give them welfare, they may even give them training; but most of the Euro nations are very wary of giving them work. This is especially true in France and Spain.

In America it’s the opposite, and Danial Hannan, a British Mp and Euro-skeptic, credits this for why America has less Islamic terrorists than Britain, despite having a larger Muslim population.

Because we have a higher expectation for people to work, and a higher bar for welfare than the Brits.

Reality is on my side.

Singapore is surrounded by Muslims, Hong Kong is surrounded by Communists, the Swiss are surrounded by Euro-socialists.

Plenty of radicals, poor people, and nimrods to go around for them, these tiny nations for whom any large immigration wave can rock their society far more than it does ours.

And yet… they prosper Dave. You don’t seem to have an explanation for this.

There’s reality, right there, staring you in the face. What’s your answer?


They “prosper” (unless you’re living In a sampan in the harbor, of course) because large portions of their population provide virtually “free” labor and live in squalor on the outskirts of Singapore and Hong Kong. Switzerland has recently SEVERELY curtailed immigration. Come in uninvited and you’re “politely” escorted to the border and shoved across.


No more “free” than Italian labor for us in the 19th century.

These people aren’t slaves, they come & go voluntarily.

They become better off, and so do the natives. Everyone gets a better deal.

If they weren’t, no one would come. That’s the reality.

Not as much as you seem to think:

Even with what restrictions they have, their immigration rate is still double ours.

They like to call themselves “half open”.


BS. In it’s entirety.


No Dave, you just didn’t care enough to look.

If you cared about the issue, you would looked into it beyond your grievance.

The endless Grievance mongering leaves you half-blind.


Ever notice that the same people who are claiming, “You can’t blame DACA folks for the ‘sins’ of their parents” are the SAME people who are demanding reparations from us for things our ancestors did 175 years ago?