Our Next President?

[Ellen Z]

Re: Our Next President?

Reading a great book of Nazi Germany and Hitler had the special sauce to mesmerize the crowd. The Elites of Germany loved Hitlers oratory skill and figured to use him as a puppet to manipulate the masses. Hillary Clinton did not/does not have the ability to mesmerize and was able to win lots of states with her platform/resume, but not enough to secure the office.

What's the name of the book, please?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Our Next President?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...te-to-see-win/

California Sen. Kamala Harris continues to lead the pack

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

I almost entirely agree, with one main exception. I don't buy the idea that they are deporting fewer people because Trump wants to keep the labor supply high. That may be the reason for more visas, but I don't think it extends to people here illegally. Deportations are rising, not falling. Yes, they were higher at some points during Obama's two terms, but they were trending down for years and now the trend is reversing.

I'm not sure the deportation number provides a clear picture of the President's wishes/strategy/actions anyway. Did Obama want to deport a lot of people early in his presidency and then change his mind? As you said, there are other factors that influence immigration policy and enforcement.

How would Trump even put this into action without it making headlines? I assume if he wanted to lighten up enforcement it would have to be communicated to the rank and file agents. A story that Trump wanted to step up enforcement wouldn't garner much attention, but certainly one that said the opposite would raise eyebrows, right?

It doesn't have to be intentional even. Take a department. Leave a ton of leadership posts empty. The department runs less efficiently. Easy.

[DSpencer]

Re: med costs

I almost entirely agree, with one main exception. I don't buy the idea that they are deporting fewer people because Trump wants to keep the labor supply high. That may be the reason for more visas, but I don't think it extends to people here illegally. Deportations are rising, not falling. Yes, they were higher at some points during Obama's two terms, but they were trending down for years and now the trend is reversing.

I'm not sure the deportation number provides a clear picture of the President's wishes/strategy/actions anyway. Did Obama want to deport a lot of people early in his presidency and then change his mind? As you said, there are other factors that influence immigration policy and enforcement.

How would Trump even put this into action without it making headlines? I assume if he wanted to lighten up enforcement it would have to be communicated to the rank and file agents. A story that Trump wanted to step up enforcement wouldn't garner much attention, but certainly one that said the opposite would raise eyebrows, right?

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

I think it depends on what you mean by hard or soft. Secure Communities was created in 2008 implemented nationwide under Obama, starting in 2011. We had local protests against Obama (and other Democrats) by immigrant rights groups because of it. I think Trump's rhetoric has been a lot tougher. I think the handling of the cases they do work has probably gotten rougher. I think they're also working fewer cases overall. And I think they're juicing legal immigration and guest workers. But let's be real about it, there's always a percentage of them who overstay their visas. It's a vector for illegal immigration. So if we get 10,000 more guest workers in MA this year than in 2015, some number of them are bound to stay.

Then again, maybe the heart of the issue is different for me than it is for you. If the point is to ease downward pressure on wages from competition from foreign labor, then authorizing a bunch of new foreign labor to come in gets right at the heart of the issue. If the point is to make a big show of roughing up people without legal immigration status with the idea that publicizing it will be a deterrent to future people who might try it, then maybe Trump's approach has merit. I tend to be skeptical of a lot of the deterrent arguments. I think we're a nation of laws, and laws should be enforced. But I've also always noticed little things like that states with the death penalty still have higher murder rates 150 years later compared with states who banned it before the Civil War. Sometimes you have to get tough. Sometimes you have to take the high road to set an example.

So what do I think? I don't think it's baloney to make Trump look mean. I think his rhetoric and some of the handling of publicized cases is mean. Like I said, I think they're handling fewer cases, but treating the cases they do handle more roughly. I don't think it's a genius move. But it serves two purposes. One, it keeps the supply of foreign labor high, which corporate America always wants. And two, the silverback posturing keeps the base happy. It's a way the Trump Admin can have its cake and eat it too. Obama had the opposite problem. He wanted to look soft and civilized to his base, but simultaneously reduce immigration flows to deal with the unemployment fallout from the great recession.

Here's my theory behind why that is: The pressure to run up immigration flows always peaks late in an expansion, for obvious reasons. The pressure to cut them off always peaks after the doldrums of a recession, for similar obvious reasons. Whether you're looking right or left, for different reasons, it's obvious the social pressure of immigration has become contentious. The 1990s were a rate of immigration the likes of which the US hadn't really experienced sine the 1910s. So now in the 2010s, the percentage of foreign born residents is as high as it has been since the 1910s. The last peak was 1999-2001, and is behind us already. The way I look at it is we're coming into the trough and could, and probably will, stay there through the 2020s. But the pressure to increase immigration flows, from a few places including the borders, but especially in Washington from large employers, ratchets up late in an expansion as demand for labor goes up and their lobbyists fight to prevent wage increases. They tend to get what they want, regardless of which party is in charge. So we're back up to 2005, 2006 levels of granting legal permanent status, and of legal immigration in general.

Now, I'm going out on a limb on this one, but I suspect that the vast majority folks who get very upset about illegal immigration probably don't want a whole lot more legal immigration either. In fact, the things that bother them in day-to-day life probably don't exactly hinge on the vagaries of visa status. In fact, even if all immigrants in the US were here legally by some act of God or Congress, I think most of these folks would still be upset. It's hot in the melting pot. The assimilation process is not painless, and rarely perfect. We underinvest in public services, and labor is getting an increasingly shrinking share of the pie to invest in their private homes. Adding more demand for private homes and public services drives up prices for folks already strapped. Of course, not all of this can be solved by immigration policy alone. The vans of Chinese nationals roving major US cities speculating on real estate are real. They bought up half of Long Island City before they got burned on the "HQ2" announcement. So I think there needs to be a concomitant series of capital flow restrictions. Various cities are trying some piecemeal ones. Think of the Vancouver foreign buyer tax, or the DC 10-month vacant tax now starting to hit parked empty luxury properties, not just blighted buildings.

Anyways, that's what I think of it. The 'nativist' impulse on one hand is cultural and psychological. On the other hand it's economic and material. It's a product of having the highest percentage of foreign born residents in a century, a good percentage of whom have no legal status, and it is the product having the flat wages and asset price inflation with the highest levels of income inequality since at least the gilded age. What else would anyone expect would happen? It's like throwing fuel on the fire. And if you follow me, whether or not you agree, increasing legal immigration flows is just adding more fuel. For a physical analogy, everything adds energy to the system. Increase capital's share and decrease labor's share, there's energy. Increase the GINI coefficient, there's energy. Increase immigration flows, more energy. Increase demand through foreign asset purchases, more energy. Crank up housing, healthcare, education, childcare, and other essential costs, and push down wages. More energy. Eventually either something gives or something pops off.

[DSpencer]

Re: med costs

Like I said, you don't have to. I just like to point out that there were a lot fewer H1Bs and H2Bs etc. issued under Obama than Trump, and there were a lot more deportations under Obama than Trump too. Trump is making a big show of a couple miles of fencing and some holding camps and executive orders. But the actual data show he's not really doing all that much, and Obama actually did more. The data is not matching the rhetoric at all.

My sense was that Trump's rhetoric was primarily about illegal immigration, not legal. He's not talking about building a wall to keep H1Bs out.

The deportation numbers are interesting, but what does it mean? Are fewer people attempting to enter the country? Is the Border Patrol more successful in keeping them out? Are there fewer immigrants that meet deportation criteria?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ob...d-more-people/

From the article you posted:

"It used to be that there was a sense that they were looking for people who had committed serious crimes,” she said in a phone interview with The Washington Post.

Under the Trump administration, Bauer said there has been a sense that U.S. immigration officials are “looking for everyone,” which has “created a society of fear and terror” in immigrant communities.

Is that all just baloney to make Trump look mean? Do you think that Trump's actions while President are actually softer on immigration than Obama's? It feels like you are throwing out a couple points of data that don't really get to the heart of the issue.

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

Like I said, you don't have to. I just like to point out that there were a lot fewer H1Bs and H2Bs etc. issued under Obama than Trump, and there were a lot more deportations under Obama than Trump too. Trump is making a big show of a couple miles of fencing and some holding camps and executive orders. But the actual data show he's not really doing all that much, and Obama actually did more. The data is not matching the rhetoric at all.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: med costs

Maybe it's just that Bernie tries to stay quiet with the rhetoric for fear of offending groups that might support him. The problem is that nearly everyone claims to want the same thing: secure the border, deport violent illegal immigrants, and humanely deal with the peaceful and hardworking immigrants who want to stay here, especially children. Is there any candidate that wouldn't say they support "comprehensive immigration reform"?

Maybe it's just a question of priorities. Or maybe some people say it but don't really mean it. All I can say is that, personally, if Bernie gets elected, I won't be expecting a clampdown on illegal immigration.

This is a campaign game we play now. Conservatives have convinced millions of Americans that Democratic candidates want a slew of ridiculous things, so the Democrats will be asked about them, and need to disavow them, no matter how absurd. I try to listen to right wing radio a bit every day, and the ridiculous accusations come a dozen every hour by every radio talk host.

[DSpencer]

Re: med costs

I'm less certain about this. We'll see what comes. But I think Bernie and most of his fans are primarily interested in increasing wages, aka the price of domestic labor, and I think they'd happily end guest worker programs and curtail immigration if it led to those ends. The more "centrist" Democrats generally support a more open borders policy, but they also generally support whatever is in the best interest of the Davos crowd anyways. Horseshoe theory is generally stupid. But I think you'll find immigration may be one issue where folks on the left and the right agree more than they disagree on actions, if not rhetoric, and folks in the center are really the opposition on actions, if not rhetoric. The problem is keeping the rhetoric distinct from the actions long enough for people to pick up on it.

You ever met a union member who liked illegal labor? Don't think I have. SEIU may be the exception to the rule. I'll tell you one thing, I agree with almost everything Tucker Carlson said here. Bananas. Who thought we'd see the day?

Maybe it's just that Bernie tries to stay quiet with the rhetoric for fear of offending groups that might support him. The problem is that nearly everyone claims to want the same thing: secure the border, deport violent illegal immigrants, and humanely deal with the peaceful and hardworking immigrants who want to stay here, especially children. Is there any candidate that wouldn't say they support "comprehensive immigration reform"?

Maybe it's just a question of priorities. Or maybe some people say it but don't really mean it. All I can say is that, personally, if Bernie gets elected, I won't be expecting a clampdown on illegal immigration.

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

Very true. Bernie even backs it up a little bit by pointing to some problems with the idea. The problem is that most of what he supports has the tendency to move towards open borders. It's kind of like saying that you don't support anarchy; you just want to release all the prisoners from jail and then defund the police.

I'm less certain about this. We'll see what comes. But I think Bernie and most of his fans are primarily interested in increasing wages, aka the price of domestic labor, and I think they'd happily end guest worker programs and curtail immigration if it led to those ends. The more "centrist" Democrats generally support a more open borders policy, but they also generally support whatever is in the best interest of the Davos crowd anyways. Horseshoe theory is generally stupid. But I think you'll find immigration may be one issue where folks on the left and the right agree more than they disagree on actions, if not rhetoric, and folks in the center are really the opposition on actions, if not rhetoric. The problem is keeping the rhetoric distinct from the actions long enough for people to pick up on it.

You ever met a union member who liked illegal labor? Don't think I have. SEIU may be the exception to the rule. I'll tell you one thing, I agree with almost everything Tucker Carlson said here. Bananas. Who thought we'd see the day?

[DSpencer]

Re: med costs

Nobody supports "open borders" .
It's a talking point catch phrase that implies some candidate wants any person in the world to be able stroll in and stay forever, no questions asked, even a million people at a time.
I'm not aware that anyone has proposed or endorses such a thing; it exists only as an insult.

Very true. Bernie even backs it up a little bit by pointing to some problems with the idea. The problem is that most of what he supports has the tendency to move towards open borders. It's kind of like saying that you don't support anarchy; you just want to release all the prisoners from jail and then defund the police.

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

I think you're right. More than that, perception is everything and reality doesn't matter. I'd be shocked if 10% of rando Americans polled would say that the Trump Admin legally lets in more foreign guest workers than Obama's. But it does. There's a lot of rhetoric and kabuki theater going on. Actions tell a different story.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: med costs

Nobody supports "open borders" .
It's a talking point catch phrase that implies some candidate wants any person in the world to be able stroll in and stay forever, no questions asked, even a million people at a time.
I'm not aware that anyone has proposed or endorses such a thing; it exists only as an insult.

[dcarrigg]

Re: med costs

Maybe of interest and relevant to the thread, this just popped up on my RSS feed.

[dcarrigg]

Re: My immigration policy--not joking

Yeah. Homelessness is usually the last option. Most people will default on their car loans and credit cards and student loans and go hungry before they get thrown out on the street. So it's great for investors. The landlord's pretty high up on the payment priority ladder. Of course, some people can and do stop paying. And laws vary by state about how long they can get away with that. But I generally expect chattel defaults to precede evictions and mortgage defaults.

I think that this is going to be a bigger story as one integral part of the next recession. The last recession forced subprime homeowners into the rental markets. The next recession is going to push renters onto the streets. The monthly cash flow of the bottom 50% is super precarious. And they're disproportionally young. And there's a lot of them. For some it may even be a blast. But they're going to be super pissed off and radicalized by what's happened. I don't think it's a coincidence that the big rental squeeze is on at the same time socialism is on the rise amongst the exact population demographics in the exact localities most affected by it. As the squeeze gets tighter, what other reaction should anyone expect? Basic Newtonian physics.

And America's unique system of profit-based healthcare works exactly this same way. They know they beat even the landlord and the bank on the priority chain. So they charge whatever they damn well please. They liquidate people in exchange for their lives. It's just naked and vulgar raw power.