Originally Posted by spence
I think the idea our "policy" creates a large draw is overstated.
Our non or inadequate enforcement of "policy" permits the "draw."
The US economy has improved but the job market is flat.
That is a strange "improvement" indeed. The greatest number or percentage not participating in the work force in mucho time, yet they can't find a job in the improved economy. And a 4 trillion dollar federal budget requested by POTUS. And food stamps distributed in far greater numbers than ever. And national debt keeps soaring. Hey, but big health insurance companies are going to make even more than ever. And much of their expanding "earnings" will be through mandated client participation, (very helpful when government herds people into your store) and at higher rates and or deductibles for many in order to help defray the cost to other newbies. Or simply donated by the government--to be paid for in higher taxes by regular people ("folks,as Obama might say). Folks, who, btw, were supposed to be relieved by the ACA of the cost of the uninsured "folks" who had been free riders. Oh well, sometimes, often, always, things just don't work out as promised. Just one of those unforeseen and unfortunate consequences--oh wait, it WAS foreseen, just, somehow, didn't come out of the President's mouth in the right string of pretty words when he promised how wonderful the ACA was going to be. There seems to be this rather socialistic trend of job growth or economic "improvement" by government fiat or influence. Sort of like the government is the third party employer or stuffer of dollars into the pockets of the big money folks. I can see, by this formula, how an economy can get "better" (pumping money which has no relation to the market into Wall Street and mandating that "folks" buy stuff, even "subsidizing" the ones who can't afford it) but employment can remain "flat."
The birth rate in Mexico is declining while their economy is improving. It's just not as an attractive proposition as it once was.
You make that sound like a winner. Birth rate goes down as the economy improves. Sounds like that addition by subtraction stuff. Maybe we should try some of that. White "folks" seem to be doing their birth-rate part. And their immigration numbers are kept lower even though there are many on the waiting list. But somehow our population rises beyond that demographic . . . oh, yeah. There's those millions of illegals. And their birth rate here is higher than white folks. Hmmph. Might be part of the cause of that huge number not participating in the work force. But wait . . . the ACA mandates paid for birth control. And planned parenthood has certainly been doing yeoman's service in that area. Just can't seem to keep up with that pesky, unproductive, production of babies some folks just seem to want to participate in. Don't worry, the government will figure a way to make folks have only their limited fair share of children. Worked out well for China. We'll, no doubt, do it better.
The surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America has shown to be due to regional violence, not a pull towards the US.
Funny, I thought that regional violence has been going on for quite some time. How come those unaccompanied minors took so long to figure out it was good to surge? Maybe they recently heard about the success of the surge in Iraq. But the "pull" thing, though, that's a little trickier. In some respects, it was more like a "push." The unaccompanied minors from Guatemala or Honduras, forget which, weren't allowed to stay in Mexico (even though the economy was getting better there--well, all the more reason to keep the population down). It seems that the Mexican government was expecting them. Gosh I wonder how they could have been so prescient. We certainly weren't prepared. Well, that's right, our intelligence community just doesn't seem to get it right at critical times. And so the Mexican authorities put them on trains and directed them to the American border. It seems, though, and that's the trickier part, that there were some signals being sent that the unaccompanied minors would be welcomed here. Maybe why the parents of the unaccompanied minors weren't so worried as parents usually are of sending their unaccompanied minors unaccompanied to far off foreign lands with no certainty of how they would survive when, or if, they got there.
I'm not sure if they're more prolific, it's likely about demographics. The white population is aging and the birth rate is slowing.
Gee . . . it sounds like the demographics, indeed, say that their birth rate is more prolific than the white folks.
The rise of minority growth is a mega trend, policy isn't going to stop it.
Aw shucks! I thought that maybe the free birth control and planned parenthood and better economy would stop it. Well, if we are doomed to be defeated by the latino mega trend (I can relate--the Lions use the megatron, Calvin Johnson, to defeat their enemies) it might be a buffer against any mega trend by Muslim demographic war.
I'd say "a reason" versus "the reason" and according to that article the health industry reports that the ACA is indeed reducing demand on the ER. This doesn't mean you have to subsidize illegals, they'd just be likely behave in a consistent manner.
OK. Now you really got me. WTF is "a consistent manner"? If you don't want them going to the ER, and they don't make enough money to pay for health insurance, and they are not subsidized, in what consistent manner must they behave in order to stay out of the ER? Consistently not get sick?
This may be a bigger issue if the illegal population was growing dramatically, but I believe the net number of illegals is stable and predicted to remain flat.
Predicted!?! If that's the clincher, then we can rest assured that the number won't "remain flat." Anyway, the illegal population, has already grown dramatically. We don't even know how much. Since the last immigration "reform" the illegal population has grown by estimates anywhere from 11 to 30 million, or more. And if no more illegals were to come here, those millions already here will give birth at higher rates than other folks. And, either the job market will have to dramatically expand, or there will have to be a huge amount of "subsidization" on top of the already huge amount. I guess that just isn't a "bigger" issue. Certainly won't impact things like the Social Security bubble in the future if the demographic and government dependence trends continue. Just a teeny one that the proper "policy" can take care of.
I think we'd all like to see bi-partisan reform but until the tea partay phenomenon fades I doubt there's much chance...
|