Trump talk

[Aetherous]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

It is weird the dims, keep talkin about obstruction when the doj, made it clear there was none.

 

They've been absolutely bonkers for years now.

[Dynasty]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

Her time is coming,

 

soon   not even being in a protected class will protect her

 

Imagine had HRC won. The Islamo-fascists would have been able to expand and entrench their networks even more in the US. And a lot of which we wouldn't even know about until too late.

[windwalker]

7 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

Imagine had HRC won. The Islamo-fascists would have been able to expand and entrench their networks even more in the US. And a lot of which we wouldn't even know about until too late.

 

Whatever label one applies to them.  they are not only or unknowingly quite dangerous.

 

Inevitably it turns out all things the accuse others of doing they in turn are doing themselves.

 

This is seen by those talking about the climate, freedom of speech, protected status. Ect.

 

They are fracturing the very institutions and societies that allow them to express their viewpoints.  The end result for all to see are in the failed States South of the border, and other areas of the world.

 

Not good

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, Aetherous said:

 

They've been absolutely bonkers for years now.

 

If one looks at what's happening at the same time they talk about rule of law they create sanctuary cities and other exemptions from laws they don't like.

 

If we really had a free mainstream press that was balanced they might start off by citing the laws so that people understand the basis by which decisions and actions are made.

 

Group identity, identity politics, multiculturalism is a strength.

 

Is slowly destroying one of the few places where true freedom is allowed to be expressed.

 

out of need for protection  from other groups people are trying to belong to a group and seek identity status   make America great again and we are Americans is in direct opposition to this movement

 

 

[joeblast]

18 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

Imagine had HRC won. The Islamo-fascists would have been able to expand and entrench their networks even more in the US. And a lot of which we wouldn't even know about until too late.

that would have been a terrible outcome, because if what Q said is true, then the US Military was coupin' the US Government and my what a shit storm THAT would have been. 

[Stosh]

2 hours ago, windwalker said:

When this first started felt it was kind of strange all the investigators known Democrat supporters.

 

In the end it kind of worked out  being obviously biased one would tend to think that if anything was going on they would find it which they did not.

 

I don't really see the distinction between the Russians providing disinformation and the mainstream news medias' disinformation.

 

 

The mainstream news media is biased they fail as being investigators for the people allowing the people to understand what's going on.

 

Freedom of press guaranteed in the Constitution was guaranteed because of the press's role in being able to provide unbiased information to the people.

 

They've become partisan no longer able to function in this role.  Good thing in this day and age there is social media and the internet for writing a function that the mainstream press no longer does

 

Exactamundo , In fact,  I would go a step farther and suggest that the Russians were just providing what was asked of them , and that the people doing the actual dis-informing was the DNC itself. 

 

If the Russians wanted to provide stuff harmful to Clinton , they could provide dirt on her to the FBI , and Steele report would have her pissing on a bed in Moscow ( or somewhere). It makes zero sense to provide ' dirt ' on Trump, if the target is Hillary. 

 

The DNC lawyers , Perkins Coie decided to subcontract Fusion who had Steele's commentary , and the Russians had no way to force that to happen , as an avenue from which to insert the dirt into the FBI. The Russians did help out in providing the avenue which went through Brennan.. the crown material. If the Russians were hostile to Hillary , they could take her Emails and use them to discredit her, and they don't need to pass garbage via Steele through Fusion and the DNC. 

 

Another possibility is that Hillary wanted the sensitive Info on her Email to be available to the Russians , where they could get at it. 

In exchange , they would help her frame Trump.  

ANd in fact that such traitorious connections were made with several countries. 

 

I dunno all that as fact, but one really needs to decide from whom was the basic plan originating , and IMO clearly it was the DNC. 

 

Why Barr says 'No Americans colluded with Russia ', is still a thing that I find confusing though. 

 Is that just a comment about the findings of the Mueller report ? or is this what he would want to say is a general fact even apart from the report? 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Stosh

[dawei]

10 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Exactamundo , In fact,  I would go a step farther and suggest that the Russians were just providing what was asked of them , and that the people doing the actual dis-informing was the DNC itself. 

 

I agree on some level but that is what both sides try on some level.  Just the DNC went further... but recall there are claims the Russian's tried to hack the RNC but just couldn't do it. 

 

10 minutes ago, Stosh said:

If the Russians wanted to provide stuff harmful to Clinton , they could provide dirt on her to the FBI , and Steele report would have her pissing on a bed in Moscow ( or somewhere). It makes zero sense to provide ' dirt ' on Trump, if the target is Hillary. 

 

The DNC lawyers , Perkins Coie decided to subcontract Fusion who had Steele's commentary , and the Russians had no way to force that to happen , as an avenue from which to insert the dirt into the FBI. The Russians did help out in providing the avenue which went through Brennan.. the crown material. If the Russians were hostile to Hillary , they could take her Emails and use them to discredit her, and they don't need to pass garbage via Steele through Fusion and the DNC. 

 

I think Russia would not show their hand so easily.  I think the argument that they were behind the Wikileaks info makes some sense despite WL said Russia was not the source.  So far, I've taken that to mean it was not Russian who passed it along to WL.

 

10 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Another possibility is that Hillary wanted the sensitive Info on her Email to be available to the Russians , where they could get at it. 

In exchange , they would help her frame Trump.  

ANd in fact that such traitorious connections were made with several countries. 

 

I dunno all that as fact, but one really needs to decide from whom was the basic plan originating , and IMO clearly it was the DNC. 

 

I've heard that but doesn't seem as plausible as what we're hearing about connections with other countries were possibly a part of getting eyes on the Trump campaign. 

 

10 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Why Barr says 'No Americans colluded with Russia ', is still a thing that I find confusing though. 

 Is that just a comment about the findings of the Mueller report ? or is this what he would want to say is a general fact even apart from the report? 

 

Not sure what your getting at... who should they be suggesting, the DNC ?   I think there would have to be both sides engaged and you seem to make the argument that Russia did not really engage with the DNC as they could of done more for them instead of against them. 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, dawei said:

 

Not sure what your getting at... who should they be suggesting, the DNC ? 

 

Exactly - they should be saying that  , Both the DNC and the Dem influenced FBI and CIA appear to have been making connections to the Russians  ( and others) , to undermine the President , sell off our Uranium , undermine our energy self sufficiency in both oil and natural gas , and it is in fact ...collusion.

Mifsud , Steele , Dearlove  were supposedly 'friendlies'.  

Just like Biden was involved with Ukrainian Natural Gas oligarchs by creating a  corrupt  ANTI-corruption intelligence-scheme partnership,  between our FBI and the Ukrainian security apparatus. 

( and way more ) 

 

Quote

 

 

 I think there would have to be both sides engaged and you seem to make the argument that Russia did not really engage with the DNC as they could of done more for them instead of against them. 

 

 

It looks to me like Russia made a halfhearted -BS -digital -interweb -feint  at interfering.

They were in FAVOR of our leftists gaining advantage. All the DNC had to do was ask for help , the pittance of money exchanged , was just paying off participants. 

 

There is a principle , that the bigger the conspiracy , the more likely that you are going to have a weak link. 

So, whats the minimum number of major players you'd need to make the whole thing go , the answer is about five. 

Comey,  Brennan,  Rosenstein , and Hillary - FBI CIA Attorney Gen and head of the DNC. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Stosh

[joeblast]

I dont want to get all up in Sean's thread anymore than I already have, but its just wild to see all those guys view everything that's going on as some insane conspiracy theory, when just about all of it, all the information, is right there to go look at.  It doesnt seem that any of them are looking at any of it, but whatever media they are consuming appears to be giving them distress.  I actually feel kinda bad about that. 

 

(Brain: This is an 'appy occasion, let's not bicker and arrrrgue over 'oo killed 'oo!)

 

I feel badly that the propaganda affects them so, that they are literally uncomfortable posting here!?  On Daobums?!?!?!

 

Cmon, we are all friends here.  Or at least that's pretty much how I view things.  But you guys seem to be taking this personally, a lot of you...act like "the whole right wing movement" is here or something all over the forum and all over the place up in the guts of the place making it intolerable.  There's literally like 2 or 3 threads here in Off Grid about it, and we have people saying they are getting to the point where they feel uncomfortable coming to daobums as a whole because of this? 

 

I honestly think you people that have such deep feels about this to where its bothering you to such wild extent need to do a little reflection, and I dont mean that in a disparaging way.

 

To be blunt, things like breaking programming and admitting you were way wrong about some things and got pretty heated about them takes some ability for self reflection. 

 

Its just disappointing.  I enjoy challenging people.  Stand on your conviction!  I dont enjoy making people feel sad when they just wont give up their failing position on a matter, they can see it and feel it failing but it just cant be so...its like whipping a defenseless animal, it just doesnt really interest me.

 

I've made my point about the transnational criminal organizations - I think that's really the best descriptor for them - so yall can watch the rest of what I said was going to come to pass just like things I said were to come to pass have come to pass.  There's no need for me to post a hundred ways I'm right every day.  I dont have any real big attachment to being right, I'm just being straightforward and ballsy about saying it, just because it makes some people squirm.  I dont know why I get a kick out of that, but I do, cheap high sometimes.

 

Time for a break, later folks

[Stosh]

  Holy Grail. Very Apt. 

Edited July 25, 2019 by Stosh

[Earl Grey]

9 hours ago, joeblast said:

Cmon, we are all friends here.  Or at least that's pretty much how I view things.  But you guys seem to be taking this personally, a lot of you...act like "the whole right wing movement" is here or something all over the forum and all over the place up in the guts of the place making it intolerable.  There's literally like 2 or 3 threads here in Off Grid about it, and we have people saying they are getting to the point where they feel uncomfortable coming to daobums as a whole because of this? 

 

I honestly think you people that have such deep feels about this to where its bothering you to such wild extent need to do a little reflection, and I dont mean that in a disparaging way.

 

The issue is not about having different opinions, it's about the manner in which those arguments are occurring, namely in being rude and abrasive and labeling those of us who aren't fans of that as being too sensitive while saying you're just a straight shooter. 

 

9 hours ago, joeblast said:

Cmon, we are all friends here.  Or at least that's pretty much how I view things.  But you guys seem to be taking this personally, a lot of you...

 

Looking at you specifically, you do make very abrasive remarks and seem to think we like it. 

 

Let me show you a couple of examples:

 

 

Do you talk to your friends that way saying "bye Felicia" in a mocking manner when they've obviously left and gotten fed up with the air you breathe? I don't put up with that in real life and I don't put up with a stranger on the Internet who before the climate change thread had ZERO interaction with me for the four years I have been a member here. That's why I left the climate change thread because I was FED UP with you. 

 

What's more is that you say I do have issues, which is true, but that doesn't mean I want you to provoke and mock. Perhaps you don't think you're mocking people and that's just how you are. I will give you that. But if I say STOP, you had better respect that. No ifs or buts. End of story.

 

When you say in the third message here from the second image comes from my personal practice forum.

 

Let me start with two things: 1) it is my PPJ. It is my sacred space, my personal space. If I've left you behind in another thread and I'm already pissed, don't come in if you're not welcome and pull that sass on me or anyone. You are not welcome there, you are not my friend. 2) I did wish ill upon you, and as a gentleman, I will apologize for that. I will not, however, go back on my feelings because the sentiment is still there, but the willwork used upon you I am rescinding. 

 

Now, in your own words, in the second post in the PPJ, you blame me for not understanding your intent--strike one, not everyone has the same sensibilities or communication style as you, let alone life experience to enjoy that garbage. Two, saying that I "put myself where your words belittled me" is inaccurate because again, I left our previous thread because I am sick of you and you followed me where you are not invited or welcome. This reasoning you are using is the same as saying it's my friend's fault for getting bullied because he carried a Barbie lunchbox his sister used one day instead of putting it in a paper bag--nobody asks for it, whether you believe it or not, but as it's already been established, you believe everyone is asking for it and you are insufferable. 

 

 

9 hours ago, joeblast said:

I enjoy challenging people.  Stand on your conviction!  I dont enjoy making people feel sad when they just wont give up their failing position on a matter, they can see it and feel it failing but it just cant be so...its like whipping a defenseless animal, it just doesnt really interest me.

 

 

I enjoy a good challenge too. I do not enjoy an abrasive and belligerent one-sided exchange where you are constantly treating those of us who see things differently from you as delusional, crazy, or too sensitive. You fail to see it because you miss the platinum rule: treat others how they wish to be treated. If I don't like it, don't tell me there's something wrong with me, respect my wishes and shut your mouth.

 

Now let's get things straight: I once heard a story from a wise man about a philosophy called "stay in your own lane" in reference to people going their own way on the highway every day. If you're not speeding ahead on a carpool lane or exiting, stay in your lane. I want nothing to do with you, you are not my friend, I have never had any positive exchange with you and do not see that ever happening. 

 

I've even almost eliminated my entire presence here from the forum because of you and your ilk here. Were it not for one kind admin and the owner of one thread who nominated me to oversee his thread on his behalf, I would have removed every single post and forgotten my password, because I already have enough stress to deal with, including the very real fear of getting shot or mugged every day where I live. 

 

Now, if you truly see everyone here as a friend, let me ask: what kind of friend are you? To me, you're the friend nobody I know would want around, and the parallel there is Wayne Arnold, the jerk-off older brother of Kevin Arnold from The Wonder Years. He's a bully, he's insufferable, he doesn't care, and yet he acts like Kevin has a problem when Kevin doesn't want him around. Sure, things got better in their later years, but he was the hate sink of the show, hands-down. 

 

 

He really thinks he's being cute and funny at the end. But he never for one moment asked how Kevin felt. You do this too.

 

So, Joe, let me ask you this: if you're really chummy and friendly, what's holding you back from an apology? Or is there nothing you've done wrong? Because whether you meant it or not, guess what? Some people get upset, some people feel hurt. But you, old friend, are harming others with this kind of attitude in life, whether you will ever be mature enough to even consider for one moment how other people think, let alone feel. 

 

I normally ignore the hell out of you and everyone else here (most of the forum is on my ignore list now), but this post was brought to my attention by someone. And here I am saying this: if you want to make things right at least between us, you can apologize, you can even do it by PM and set up a face-to-face meeting on Skype or Zoom, and talk with each other--key word with, not at or over--and resolve this as men and gentlemen. No limitation of text only, no absence of tone or facial expressions or subtleties, no hiding behind keyboards and avatars--human beings engaging one another.

 

But if that's too much for you and your pride, then let us formally make this the beginning of what I would like: for you to stay in your own f***ing lane and I will stay in mine. No future communication. Ever. This was my last attempt to speak with you as a human being, to let you know what should be known, even if it invites the mockery and scrutiny of the usual peanut gallery here who at this point, I don't even care if they continue with their insults, their mockery, trivialization, gaslighting, and all the like. I'm fed up, but I've made my peace and given you my apology above already. 

 

To the rest of the people on this thread, I apologize for taking things off topic even if joeblast has already done so by referencing another thread. I will excuse myself now and ask for you all to at least, if you have anything to say to me, whether it's insulting me or the opposite, please address me via PM. No more replies or derailing this thread any further, especially to highlight me. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Earl Grey

[joeblast]

4 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

 

The issue is not about having different opinions, it's about the manner in which those arguments are occurring, namely in being rude and abrasive and labeling those of us who aren't fans of that as being too sensitive while saying you're just a straight shooter.

You're right Earl, I'm sorry I didnt realize your skin was microns thick and you dont have any interest in changing that or getting past it, but want to continually wear it as a badge.  I already explained the plainspeak and how some people just cant handle it - well, you're one of those people who cannot handle unvarnished, unfiltered, pure truthful no frills reality.  I poked you once or twice to see if you'd come out of your shell, and when you made it clear that you are very much at home inside your shell and do not wish to change at all, I left you alone.  You're a very angry person and I hope you get past that, for your own sake.  The Irony is I was but probing your anger and hoping to prompt you into some movement, but you decided you'd hate me for it instead.  I''d be way too honest of a counselor, I'd put the mirror up too quickly and clients would leave.  That's why my profession deals with 1s and 0s, which only understand proper syntax.  People, there's no telling how long they want to sit there staring into the painting of Vigo.

[Earl Grey]

On 7/26/2019 at 7:30 PM, joeblast said:

You're right Earl, I'm sorry I didnt realize your skin was microns thick and you dont have any interest in changing that or getting past it, but want to continually wear it as a badge.

 

This is not a sincere apology, it is a nonapology as exemplified here from this wonderful comedy site: https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-types-apologies-that-arent-apologies-at-all/

 

and other examples you make a textbook example of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

 

Quote: Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" to someone who has been offended by a statement is a non-apology apology. It does not admit there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and may imply the person took offense for hypersensitive or irrational reasons. Another form of non-apology does not apologize directly to the injured or insulted party, but generically "to anyone who might have been offended". 

 

There goes my experiment proving you, sir, have no desire to look in the mirror but somehow love to believe you are shining the light on others. You are too proud to offer a sincere apology or acknowledge harm you cause others, and you don't care, it is everyone else's fault-- how insufferable and insincere. A complete absence of empathy and compassion. The definition of a bully and jerk.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:30 PM, joeblast said:

The Irony is I was but probing your anger and hoping to prompt you into some movement, but you decided you'd hate me for it instead.

 

At least you admit you provoked me, for that I give you credit. Doesn't make it right though. I know I have anger, but I am at least man enough to admit I need help and have been getting help, unlike you who won't take any feedback or admit for once in your life that perhaps you should consider that the things you do and say are not cool. Tip: what you are doing is not cool.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 7:30 PM, joeblast said:

I''d be way too honest of a counselor, I'd put the mirror up too quickly and clients would leave.

 

As a former professional counselor myself, you would actually be no different from some of the people who many former clients wonder how the hell they got their credentials, including the board after reading the complaints filed against these soon-to-be if not already former counselors. 

 

The word for what you are doing is called abuse. It is gaslighting, trivializing, projecting, minimizing, and projecting, at the very least.

 

Unsurprisingly, you did not take my invitation either, to speak man to man privately or even offline, so it is quite obvious you refuse to be a gentleman or a decent human being because you are too proud (or perhaps too cowardly), and that's fine--just stay in your own lane and away from mine. 

 

[to everyone else, please do not reply on this thread if you have issues with what I've posted here--PM me and continue, as I want nothing more to do with this thread as this is joeblast's lane and not mine]. 

 

Have a good life. 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Earl Grey

[MooNiNite]

20 hours ago, joeblast said:

I dont want to get all up in Sean's thread anymore than I already have, but its just wild to see all those guys view everything that's going on as some insane conspiracy theory, when just about all of it, all the information, is right there to go look at.  It doesnt seem that any of them are looking at any of it, but whatever media they are consuming appears to be giving them distress.  I actually feel kinda bad about that. 

 

I wonder if these leftists can ever get past the fact that communism fails at every turn. 

It doesn't even economically make sense, nor promote personal growth, which seems to be a center point of life.

I think they will be forever wanting communism but then have to continually face to reality that it doesn't work and they cant just live in their safety net. It doesnt promote innovation either, so even if it did work for a short time they would be at a disadvantage towards the rest of the world. 

It's also interesting to me how they all praise Obama, but never recognize that black unemployment doubled under Obama and halved under trump, not to mention all of the other positive economic indicators under Trump.

 

They seem to ignore what creates a healthy society where people have jobs and arn't starving to death and push for forced "values." 

[Nintendao]

On 7/25/2019 at 9:29 AM, windwalker said:

 

(For those unfamiliar with Nameks, I'm actually complementing her. Hey I'm not racist, I'm a fashionist!)

[joeblast]

lol with everything that's being discussed, you post shit like that  /facepalms

fkn kids, I tell ya

it simply serves no purpose.  at least be constructive in criticisms. 

 

if the left is to be asked to drop orange man bad once they figure out he helped save the goddam planet, then "the right" would do well to realize that WWG1WGA includes leftists.

[Nintendao]

 

On 7/26/2019 at 6:01 PM, joeblast said:

it simply serves no purpose.  at least be constructive in criticisms.

While perhaps appearing to be a low brow jab based on physical appearance, I was attempting a call to attention the potent non-verbal communication that by literally sharpening her claws, she's not afraid to throw down, and I respect that. I'm just more of a visual thinker, and treasure the  opportunity to demonstrate "life imitating art."

 

On 7/26/2019 at 6:01 PM, joeblast said:

if the left is to be asked to drop orange man bad once they figure out he helped save the goddam planet, then "the right" would do well to realize that WWG1WGA includes leftists.

 

No, orange man good!

Edited July 28, 2019 by Nintendao
meh

[Lost in Translation]

7 hours ago, MooNiNite said:

I wonder if these leftists can ever get past the fact that communism fails at every turn. 

 

But that was never real communism! If I were in charge I would do it correctly.

 

Spoiler

Until someone shot me in the back and took over...

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Lost in Translation

[gendao]

 

On 7/16/2019 at 7:49 PM, Lost in Translation said:

If you pay for illegal aliens then you get more illegal aliens.

Indeed.  And the US actually had a formal program importing Mexican farmhands for 22 years up until 1964 because American citizens wouldn't do that hard labor.

Quote

Remember that time the U.S. asked Mexico to send its hard-working men and save the U.S. agricultural economy during war time? That time from 1942 to 1964, when the U.S. offered 4.6 million contracts through The Bracero Program because many American growers feared World War II would bring labor shortages to low-paying, arduous, agricultural jobs scorned by most Americans? And then they kept renewing it because U.S. growers needed the cheap labor. 
This is how circular migration from Mexico to the U.S. was encouraged. This is the history of the Mexican immigrants some Americans now scorn.

So this wasn't just Mexicans uncontrollably sneaking across the border for decades.  For decades, many of them were actually openly recruited by the US government to help "MAG"...because US citizens wouldn't.

Yes, cheap foreign labor has ALWAYS been a part of what "MAG" (economically) - from Black slaves, to Chinese railroad workers, to Mexican farmhands, etc. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by gendao

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, gendao said:

On 7/16/2019 at 5:49 PM, Lost in Translation said:

If you pay for illegal aliens then you get more illegal aliens.

Indeed.  And the US actually had a formal program importing Mexican farmhands for 22 years up until 1964 because American citizens wouldn't do that hard labor.

 

A "formal program importing Mexican farmhands" is a program to import legal laborers. Legal laborers are not the same as illegal aliens.

[Lost in Translation]

12 minutes ago, gendao said:

Yes, cheap foreign labor has ALWAYS been a part of what "MAG" (economically) - from Black slaves, to Chinese railroad workers, to Mexican farmhands, etc. 

 

I'm not sure where you are going with this. There is a big difference between slaves brought here by force and migrant laborers, even if the migrants were often treated very poorly. On the issue of slavery, the US literally fought a bloody civil war to rectify that wrong, That debt was paid in blood over 150 years ago.

 

As for cheap labor... do you often pay more for something than you need to? Business runs on the bottom line. They don't spend more than necessary. The best way to drive up wages is competition, which gives potential employees options and forces hiring managers to pay higher wages to acquire talent.

[Zork]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

A "formal program importing Mexican farmhands" is a program to import legal laborers. Legal laborers are not the same as illegal aliens.

What he is saying is that depending on circumstances on the political scene of the US, the same people could be either encouraged payed legal workers or unwanted illegal immigrants while doing virtualy the same jobs.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Zork

[C T]

I think the reasons for the current migrant crisis goes back some way, and largely self-inflicted, so to focus the discussion or debate on (blame?) illegal vs legal labour is kinda missing the point. The bigger picture might include needing to understand why domestic labour, although more than plenty to fill the various sector demands, have not been properly incentivised. Instead, it got so out of hand that a significant percentage of available and healthy domestic labour would rather live off social assistance than taking jobs they don't fancy. With this vacuum created, can anyone be foolish enough to assume labour-intensive sectors, driven by profit and maybe greed, will abide strictly to hiring only legalised workers? The wage discrepancy between new world and old world countries is so drastic that it will ensure the crisis will only worsen with time. Instead of addressing the malpractices within capitalistic America, the focus went all awry, and became a political contention, stinking up by dividing further an already divided country. 

[ilumairen]

3 hours ago, C T said:

I think the reasons for the current migrant crisis goes back some way, and largely self-inflicted, so to focus the discussion or debate on (blame?) illegal vs legal labour is kinda missing the point. The bigger picture might include needing to understand why domestic labour, although more than plenty to fill the various sector demands, have not been properly incentivised. Instead, it got so out of hand that a significant percentage of available and healthy domestic labour would rather live off social assistance than taking jobs they don't fancy.

 

This caught my attention, and is worth noting. 

 

There is, and for a long time has been incentive, and we're surely watching the ways in which where the focus and incentive has been placed are playing out.

 

Through government assistance we've actually incentivized a number of things, in unintentional ways. (Such as able bodied individuals finding it more palatable to live on government assistance.)

 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by ilumairen

[Lost in Translation]

5 hours ago, Zork said:

What he is saying is that depending on circumstances on the political scene of the US, the same people could be either encouraged payed legal workers or unwanted illegal immigrants while doing virtualy the same jobs.

 

I understand that, but it's a disingenuous comparison, since the waves of 100's of thousands of illegal migrants swarming into the country each year are not making a bee-line for the farming sector. Rather, they are dispersing throughout the entire country, into large, 'sanctuary' cities where they meld into the general populace, working all manner of generally blue collar jobs from restaurant workers, landscapers, construction, auto mechanics, machine shops, laborers, etc. These are jobs that US citizens absolutely would do, but are being denied the opportunity because of the downward wage pressure.

 

2 hours ago, C T said:

The bigger picture might include needing to understand why domestic labour, although more than plenty to fill the various sector demands, have not been properly incentivised. Instead, it got so out of hand that a significant percentage of available and healthy domestic labour would rather live off social assistance than taking jobs they don't fancy. With this vacuum created, can anyone be foolish enough to assume labour-intensive sectors, driven by profit and maybe greed, will abide strictly to hiring only legalised workers?

 

This is exactly the problem. We have a process to verify worker status. It's called E-Verify. But that system is compromised in a couple key ways: first; not all employers use it, even though it is required, and second; there is a huge market for illegally acquired social security cards. In other words, identity theft. Even if an employer runs the numbers they often come back clean.