Social Outrage over Maine lavishing $34M on 'Taj Mahal' apartments for asylum seekers and welcoming 75,000 newcomers this decade while leaving veterans and h

[UFCUCF]

That’s how you get future voters , screw the vets and lower middle working class who is paying for this .

The Democratic party is neither this organized or forward looking.

 

[avenue94]

All the immigrants are coming to expensive cities like New York and Chicago it would cost a fortune to house them here. We already have a homeless problem that we haven't been able to solve for years. Why TF would I want even more illegal immigrants exacerbating the problem?

Here's the thing: the government has quite a few tools at its disposal if it wanted to harness these migrants and incentive that they move to certain parts of the country, rather than cities like that.

Again, homeless is not a problem of not enough resources, it's a political failure and civic failure. You're creating a false dichotomy.

Then what is your solution? I personally would not mind if the president did an executive action and just deported everyone. Fuck their asylum applications that will take years.

And when other countries retaliate by tossing out treaties they don't like but benefit the US? Not to mention why would anyone sign an international agreement with the US after it shreds one unlawfully?

Not to mention you would instantly create a massive price hike in rather important industries such as construction, housing (I thought you cared about homelessness?), agriculture, etc.

If the consequences of a treaty is a never ending mass migration under the guise of asylum, which is costing countless billions of dollars then yes you rip up the treaty. I'll take those consequences over the consequences of whatever the fuck you want to call the current border crisis.

And yet...immigrants are a net positive economically. That isn't up for debate. It's been studied ad nauseum.

Do you think everyone should live in America?

Maybe we should take care of Americans first, you know, so we don’t wind up with more people that need help

I think folks should have the same opportunity my forefathers had: If you're willing to work, contribute civically and assimilate into the American fabric, you should have the chance. That's my threshold.

From a utilitarian perspective, do see the problem with rewarding this type of behavior?

What kind of behavior? Skipping trials?

 

[avenue94]

They aren't "Asylum Seekers".....and it doesn't take months or years to determine who gets to stay or go...It takes days to deport everyone of them that came here illegal and didn't follow the legal process.

It literally takes months or years. This backlog has existed for decades due to government inaction.

They are literally economic migrants coming illegally to drain the US of resources. If there were no freebies they wouldn't come.

What freebies do illegal or legal immigrants come for?

 

[checktheknuckles]

That’s how you get future voters , screw the vets and lower middle working class who is paying for this .

Thats the Dem playbook. Good thing Biden called out the black community saying you aren't black if you don't vote for him. 80 million black people rushed to vote for Biden.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Here's the thing: the government has quite a few tools at its disposal if it wanted to harness these migrants and incentive that they move to certain parts of the country, rather than cities like that.

Again, homeless is not a problem of not enough resources, it's a political failure and civic failure. You're creating a false dichotomy.

And when other countries retaliate by tossing out treaties they don't like but benefit the US? Not to mention why would anyone sign an international agreement with the US after it shreds one unlawfully?

Not to mention you would instantly create a massive price hike in rather important industries such as construction, housing (I thought you cared about homelessness?), agriculture, etc.

And yet...immigrants are a net positive economically. That isn't up for debate. It's been studied ad nauseum.

I think folks should have the same opportunity my forefathers had: If you're willing to work, contribute civically and assimilate into the American fabric, you should have the chance. That's my threshold.

What kind of behavior? Skipping trials?

"Net positive" how exactly and for whom?

Please explain how that fits into the new paradigm of states and municipalities providing room and board.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Fast track the applications with an extremely heavy response of rejections. Have them all bio documented and start investing heavily in AI recognition technology. But i lean towards the notion that the humanitarian approach only encourages flow.

 

[avenue94]

"Net positive" how exactly and for whom?

Please explain how that fits into the new paradigm of states and municipalities providing room and board.

The same way you or I contribute. They pay taxes, fill labor shortages, and they offset America's declining birth rate. If you want Social Security and Medicare to be solvent, you need more people paying into it. America is on the wrong side of the aging curve, you can see this in the programs I mentioned, as well as if you look at workforce participation rate.

Like I Said, the construction industry and agriculture don't function without new labor entering the market. And citizens don't want to at the current price point (which reflects what these goods cost us)

And as mentioned before, states and municipalities aren't paying for this, they are being reimbursed by the federal government. It's effectively cost neutral for them.

Fast track the applications with an extremely heavy response of rejections. Have them all bio documented and start investing heavily in AI recognition technology. But i lean towards the notion that the humanitarian approach only encourages flow.

That means hiring way more judges and legal representatives. I'll note that the GOP has no interest in this because they have no interest in solving the backlog. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves and what to run on if magically tomorrow immigration vanished.

 

[mkess101]

And yet...immigrants are a net positive economically. That isn't up for debate. It's been studied ad nauseum.

Yes, when there are enforceable parameters in place and are being used with at least a marginal level of effectiveness. Nobody is arguing (to my understanding, maybe I've missed it) "immigration is bad, period". We absolutely need migrant labor and the other contributions that immigrants make. But there's quite obviously a tipping point. If it was a simple as "Immigrants=net positive economically, end of discussion"...we wouldn't have or need ANY immigration laws. We'd just open the borders and watch the flood of immigrants bring in the never-ending economic boom.

 

[N13]

LMAO at "newcomers."

That's the new word for illegal Bigrants.

 

[avenue94]

Nobody is arguing (to my understanding, maybe I've missed it) "immigration is bad, period".

Ask how many in this thread want immigration quotas raised or reduced. The GOP has repeatedly tried to reduce it. The idea that the modern GOP is only against illegal immigration is flat out untrue.

But there's quite obviously a tipping point.

Sure, but that point isn't even remotely close. How else do you plan to fund our social safety nets based off of an increasingly elderly population and smaller and smaller workforce?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

The same way you or I contribute. They pay taxes, fill labor shortages, and they offset America's declining birth rate. If you want Social Security and Medicare to be solvent, you need more people paying into it. America is on the wrong side of the aging curve, you can see this in the programs I mentioned, as well as if you look at workforce participation rate.

Like I Said, the construction industry and agriculture don't function without new labor entering the market. And citizens don't want to at the current price point (which reflects what these goods cost us)

And as mentioned before, states and municipalities aren't paying for this, they are being reimbursed by the federal government. It's effectively cost neutral for them.

That means hiring way more judges and legal representatives. I'll note that the GOP has no interest in this because they have no interest in solving the backlog. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves and what to run on if magically tomorrow immigration vanished.

You could potentially streamline everything using software. Run applications though it with set parameters. But yes, there would be a need for investment. I like the GOP strategy, villianize and dehumanize them for politcal points and then exploite them for cheaper labour in the jobs of the dregs

 

[panamaican]

Its more honest, but the last part is a silly opinion that isn't based in reality. Rewarding unethical behavior will just encourage more to come.

That's idiotic and the type of thing that people say because they don't think in terms of real life.

Let's say Maine does not house the asylum seekers that bussed there. Where will the asylum seekers go? They will sit on street corners...doing what? They don't have any money so how can they go anywhere or buy food? Maine residents will be fine with more homeless people sitting on street corners?

You're calling what I wrote as silly and not based in reality but your position is that the state should simply pretend that the people newly arrived in their state don't exist.

Maybe your opinion is that Maine should simply watch people freeze to death or starve to death?

Tell me what you think happens to these people if Maine does not house or feed them?

 

[HereticBD]

Tell me what you think happens to these people if Maine does not house or feed them?

They stop going to Maine.

 

[mkess101]

Ask how many in this thread want immigration quotas raised or reduced. The GOP has repeatedly tried to reduce it. The idea that the modern GOP is only against illegal immigration is flat out untrue.

Sure, but that point isn't even remotely close. How else do you plan to fund our social safety nets based off of an increasingly elderly population and smaller and smaller workforce?

The modern GOP is a shitshow. There's an argument to be made that you shouldn't increase quotas until you get a handle on how to better process, vet, etc those who apply. I don't trust either party to even begin to address it though.

Again, if it was as simple as more immigration=stronger economy with no controls in place, we could just open the borders and watch our problems disappear. (Not that you're advocating that, but it's something I see posted often enough with no qualifiers ever accompanying it and I'm like "hold on...").

 

[kahiljabroni]

The same way you or I contribute. They pay taxes, fill labor shortages, and they offset America's declining birth rate. If you want Social Security and Medicare to be solvent, you need more people paying into it. America is on the wrong side of the aging curve, you can see this in the programs I mentioned, as well as if you look at workforce participation rate.

Like I Said, the construction industry and agriculture don't function without new labor entering the market. And citizens don't want to at the current price point (which reflects what these goods cost us)

And as mentioned before, states and municipalities aren't paying for this, they are being reimbursed by the federal government. It's effectively cost neutral for them.

That means hiring way more judges and legal representatives. I'll note that the GOP has no interest in this because they have no interest in solving the backlog. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves and what to run on if magically tomorrow immigration vanished.

I was lookin for empirical data... not your opinion. Specifically with the latest policy of government paid room and board.

 

[Hog-train]

Here's the thing: the government has quite a few tools at its disposal if it wanted to harness these migrants and incentive that they move to certain parts of the country, rather than cities like that.

The other parts of the country do not want to deal with them. That's why they're bussing them into sanctuary cities to begin with. Now the sanctuary cities don't want them either.

And when other countries retaliate by tossing out treaties they don't like but benefit the US? Not to mention why would anyone sign an international agreement with the US after it shreds one unlawfully?

A majority of the migrants are coming from Venezuela and they're currently going through one of the worst economic crisis' in a long time. There's no treaty with Venezuela where we agreed to take all their migrants. The hell are you talking about?

We deport all the illegal immigrants coming from Venezuela and they're going to be mad? Oh no - who gives a shit.

 

[Mr Holmes]

What kind of behavior? Skipping trials?

Encouraging more illegals to come here regardless if they need asylum or not.

 

[Mr Holmes]

That's idiotic and the type of thing that people say because they don't think in terms of real life.

Let's say Maine does not house the asylum seekers that bussed there. Where will the asylum seekers go? They will sit on street corners...doing what? They don't have any money so how can they go anywhere or buy food? Maine residents will be fine with more homeless people sitting on street corners?

You're calling what I wrote as silly and not based in reality but your position is that the state should simply pretend that the people newly arrived in their state don't exist.

Maybe your opinion is that Maine should simply watch people freeze to death or starve to death?

Tell me what you think happens to these people if Maine does not house or feed them?

In chicago a bunch decided they were tired of sleeping on the floor of a police station and went back to their home country. You'll be shocked to learn they weren't actually refugees.

Once word gets out of how generous Maine is, more of the illegals will flock there. Soon they will run out of places to put them. They made a huge mistake.

 

[Lucas1980]

It literally takes months or years. This backlog has existed for decades due to government inaction.

And...... They aren't asylum seekers they are unvetted and unwanted criminals breaking into another country... They are Criminals.

 

[Lucas1980]

LMAO at "newcomers."

That's the new word for illegal Bigrants.

Laughing..."Newcomers"
So if I come home and see a stranger that broke into my home and eating my food I guess he's not a trespassing "Criminal"......He's a "Newcomer".