Talk:Whose Expertise Inspired Our Immigration Laws?
Your contribution is welcome. Sign your contribution with 4 tildes (~~~~). The simplest way to contribute is on this "Discussion" page, which is like a place to leave comments. Or you can clarify something on the article page, from fixing typos to adding a paragraph, or a section, or a whole new article. For suggestions how, please see The Forum#Ways you can contribute. For sample verbiage and codes to help you do this, that you can copy, paste, and adapt, see Template.
Details only fool the gullible
Randy Crawford R-IA, Anti-abortion, 3/16/2016 8:12 pm
Don't get bogged down in the details, which are there only to fool the gullible. Look at the big picture. When the people who control money wanted lots of population for farms, mines, soldiers, etc. they had their Billy Grahams of the time preach "be fruitful and multiply." Now, they need fewer people thanks to mechanization, computerization, and especially too many old people they want to not support with Medicare, Social Security, and etc. promises to voters that are for suckering votes and always have been. Now, they want lower population. Isn't it obvious? That is why their media now preaches the virtues of killing babies and turning as many people as possible into AIDS infested perverts, so they don't multiply and instead die off as fast as possible. The only reason they don't want a big kill-off war, which was the old way to cut down the population, is that now the Nuclear Winter would ruin their economy. So, they scam where they can. By letting in a bunch of cheap labor with the mentality of peasant serfs, and getting the American Morons to kill their babies, they replace the US population with cheap imports that undercut people who ordinarily would have the tradition of patriotic minutemen. The goal is to make you cheap, dead, and not reproducing meanwhile. Don't waste time on details designed for distraction.
Response: The "people who control the money" are, ultimately, "we the people"
Let me see if I understand your argument. "They" want citizens to kill off citizen babies to reduce the patriotic population and replace them with mind-numbed immigrant peasant "serfs" so "they" will have a stronger economy, since our economy no longer requires people, now that we have technology? And the way they deceive voters into killing their children is by tricking them into studying details?
If this is not your argument I hope you will clarify it. Meanwhile, if it really is, and if you mean it to be somehow a response to an article observing that voters and lawmakers trust the claims of Undocumented Economists rather than real economists on economic questions, then I must presume when you say "don't get distracted by details designed to deceive you" you are equating "details" with education, in this case about economics, so your message is "don't go to college. And don't trust people who go there. Learning about reality only deceives you. You will be much wiser if you remain ignorant."
Of course many things learned in college do not make one wiser, and do not match reality. But that apparently is not what you are talking about. Your broadside seems to be against the entire concept of learning. Learning is what makes citizens kill their babies.
If that is not what you mean, I hope you will clarify.
I take it as obvious that the "people who control the money" are, ultimately, "we the people". Voters. And the only way money is "controlled" by a fraction of the people is when voters do not study the details of their government and economy, forfeiting their stewardship to the few who are paying attention. Someone has to make the decisions that run our economy. If not everyone will pay attention, a few must. How much can we fault those few for making decisions for us - because we won't participate in making them ourselves - which they perceive to be in their own interest? The only logically possible way to have economy policy that is fair to all, therefore, is for all to study its details and engage with each other in discussing facts and solutions.
I don't know who actually believes we can have a growing technology with a shrinking population. I suppose some do. But that is economically ignorant, if I understand the subject correctly.
Randy Crawford R-IA, Anti-abortion, 3/20/2016 3:59 pm
Clarification: "They" prefer cheap, pliable immigrants
Somewhat accurate, but you are oversimplifying.
You wrote "If this is not your argument I hope you will clarify it." The people who issue money, which isn't the citizenry but Federal Reserve types/Rockefellers/Bushes/Clintons, etc. etc. want fewer citizens = fewer to support with jobs and old age pensions. Humans used to be a valuable resource, but now are too numerous for their needs. Immigrant imports are cheaper labor AND are easier to push around. That is the big picture, and details can help or hurt depending on whether or not they get you (or anyone else) lost in the smoke and mirrors like what the Wizard of Oz = the Wizards of Washington use..
You wrote, attempting to characterize my position, "you are equating "details" with education", wrong perception. You need to understand the big picture first, otherwise little details will get in the way of seeing the big picture. When you are the victim of a scam, the scammers cloud your view with details (fog, smoke, mirror, details) so you can't see what the big picture is about. Like Jews in cattle cars thought they were going to a work camp. Sort of, yeah, but they didn't clue into the ulterior motives until too late. You and a lot of other people need to look for the ulterior motives and not get lost in the story presented for your comsumption.
You wrote, attempting to characterize my position, "...in this case about economics, so your message is 'don't go to college.'" College, like fire or money or guns or cars, can be used for good or for ill. The thing isn't good or bad, what is good or bad is the use to which it is put.
You wrote, attempting to characterize my position, "And don't trust people who go there. Learning about reality only deceives you. You will be much wiser if you remain ignorant." No, you will be wiser if you see through deception, and look at the wolf inside rather than the sheep's cloak he is wearing.
You wrote, attempting to characterize my position, "Learning is what makes citizens kill their babies." No, being shortsighted, selfish, and stupid is what makes them kill their babies, and other stupidities like going homo.
You wrote, "the "people who control the money" are, ultimately, "we the people". Wrong. We the People control very little, and if we were in control as we were previously there would be fewer problems. The money has the value of gold and silver taken out, only phony paper is issued, its value is dictated by bureaucrats and eaten away by inflation, or else people are ruined by staged depressions. Money is bait through which suckers are controlled.
I don't think you are challenging the value of economics
I get the impression now that none of your comments here have any relation to my article. You are not challenging the value of at least some of the learning available in college, nor are you challenging my thesis that those who study a subject most ought generally to be most trusted to correctly understand it. More specifically, you are not challenging my suggestion that real economists ought to be listened to, on the subject of the economic impact of immigration, at least as much as Undocumented Economists.
Rather, you are urging a perspective from which these economic facts should be viewed. You say "Federal Reserve types/Rockefellers/Bushes/Clintons" prefer immigrants over citizens because they "are cheaper labor AND are easier to push around." You say "We the People control very little...the money has the value of gold and silver taken out, only phony paper is issued, its value is dictated by bureaucrats...."
Do we differ? Do you think voters lack the power to accomplish any change in government upon which they can agree? Do you think anything other than voter disinterest hands power to the few who are paying attention? "We the people" forfeit power. Do you think otherwise? Do you think the few have seized power from "we the people" in any sense that prevents us from taking it back to whatever extent we awaken and reason with one another?
The disinterest of voters in managing their own freedom and prosperity is extremely deliberate, stubborn, and "set in concrete". For Christians it is fixed in place by Noninvolvement Theologies that loom like mountains over the darkness of our political landscape. I explore this at Gospel Light turned off by Christians.
Randy Crawford, R-IA 7:56 pm 3/21/2016
It is no good for only a few to figure out "The Scam"
Regina and Cathy seem to be right. Another guy who is clued in (Michael Rivero) to ulterior motives, which need to be assiduously paid attention to, is at What Really Happened i.e. whatreallyhappened.com for example http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.php#axzz43aQBH9LA [This article alleges our government has always lied to us to get us to go to war]
You wrote, "And the only way money is "controlled" by a fraction of the people is when voters do not study the details of their government and economy, forfeiting their stewardship to the few who are paying attention."
Sort of. Understanding what is going on behind the Wizard's curtain is the beginning of improvement, but if only a few have the scam figured out, and the rest are busy with their nose into the TV watching stupid football games all the time, or re-reading the same Bible verses hours a week for decades because they didn't figure out the Bible on the first or second reading, then little will happen because so few are there to do anything. Like two or three guys outside a few abortion clinics doesn't stop abortion. It takes more people and additional tactics.
You wrote, "Someone has to make the decisions that run our economy." And those who do want all the millions of suckers to let them do it their way, since they are the self-appointed 'experts'.
You wrote, "The only logically possible way to have economy policy that is fair to all, therefore, is for all to study its details and engage with each other in discussing facts and solutions." But the problem is 99% surrender to their masters the knowledge and time demands that are used to make the 99% into perpetual slaves, with the slaves all the time believing they live in the land of freedom and opportunity since it is easier to fall for big lies than to peer behind the Wizard's curtain and do something.
You wrote, "[To] believe we can have a growing technology with a shrinking population....is economically ignorant...." No, we in fact do have a growing technology and that is why the Wizards want us to have a shrinking population. If you used to need 500 guys to operate your mine or farm or trucking company, but now thanks to technology you can do the same job with 20 guys and big machines, would you want the other 480 on your payroll? It isn't very complicated. And if the 20 left can be imported from Mexico and paid $8 an hour instead of $30 an hour, that is even more money in your pocket. If you pay attention to the big picture instead of getting lost in myriad little details, things will be clearer.
You wrote, "...nor are you challenging my thesis that those who study a subject most ought generally to be most trusted to correctly understand it." Specifying who is correctly understanding is a matter of judgement. That gets decided by voters, if they are studious and astute (lots of luck there) or by a bureaucracy which can be honest or crooked. If the bureaucracy is rigged, as few Machiavellian slimers can steal anything they want, or let millions of kids get slaughtered in abortion mills, or OK fake homo arrangements falsely called 'marriages' since that is how the crooked regime wants things done.
You wrote, "More specifically, you are not challenging my suggestion that real economists ought to be listened to, on the subject of the economic impact of immigration, at least as much as Undocumented Economists." Again, judging who is a real economist depends on this or that opinion. Just because somebody pretends to be an expert economist doesn't mean they are, and it doesn't mean they are free from ulterior motives--- which can be extremely sinister. If you think level of studying, or hours studying, qualified a person to be a decider, you might as well let whoever studies Communist theology the most time run your life for you, and conclude that any time they want you to surrender yourself to a death camp, then oh well they must know what they are doing since you surrender the authority of pretended expertise to them.
A university degree is NOT a totally useless measure of human competence.
Much of what you say about citizens' loss of power, through disinterest, seems only a restatement of what I have said about it. But on a couple of other matters we have a genuine dispute.
You said, "they are the self-appointed 'experts'....Specifying who is correctly understanding is a matter of judgement....judging who is a real economist depends on this or that opinion. Just because somebody pretends to be an expert economist doesn't mean they are, and it doesn't mean they are free from ulterior motives--- which can be extremely sinister. If you think level of studying, or hours studying, qualified a person to be a decider, you might as well let whoever studies Communist theology the most time run your life for you, and conclude that any time they want you to surrender yourself to a death camp, then oh well they must know what they are doing since you surrender the authority of pretended expertise to them."
However imprecise a university diploma may be as a measure of human competence, it is one of the easiest measures to verify, making it generally the fairest to institutionalize as a legal requirement for various careers; it is generally the best measure available to humans for its ease of verification, and the safety of society is so dependent on restricting certain responsibilities to those who can most safely do them that much of our society would collapse without them.
A "real economist", as I use the phrase, is someone with a university degree with a major in economics. There is nothing "self appointed" about their expertise. Economics departments are not diploma mills.
However, Undocumented Economists, as I term them, are certainly "self-appointed 'experts'", and it has been dangerous to trust them as "deciders". They are certainly not free of "ulterior motives- which can be extremely sinister". Trusting their "pretended expertise" may well be as dumb as "surrending to a death camp." Is that who you meant to talk about?
Economists are not "deciders". They are researchers. They supply information to "deciders". The "level of studying, or hours studying, qualifies a person to" understand information and supply it to others. Do you REALLY, SERIOUSLY take the position that a university degree is a totally useless measure of human skill?
You wrote, "If you used to need 500 guys to operate your mine or farm or trucking company, but now thanks to technology you can do the same job with 20 guys and big machines, would you want the other 480 on your payroll? It isn't very complicated. And if the 20 left can be imported from Mexico and paid $8 an hour instead of $30 an hour, that is even more money in your pocket." r
What this overlooks is the army of people it takes to produce that technology that replaces the labor previously needed for a task. Think of a lowly pencil. Think of the machines it takes to manufacture them by the millions, the sales force needed to sell and market them, the shippers needed to transport them, the inventors needed to make them better and cheaper in order to keep up with the competition. Multiply that times everything we have today.
Two centuries ago almost everybody had to produce food. Now there are as few farmers as there used to be non-farmers. Had we told our ancestors about this reversal they would have asked, "Well then what is there for the 95% who will no longer farm to do? There certainly aren't that many jobs for shoe makers, candle makers, barrel makers, and blacksmiths."
Our technology requires armies of people to develop and maintain it. The larger the brain pool of free, safe citizens, the wealthier we can be.
You write, "little will happen because so few are there to do anything." Despair cannot be our response to the threats to our nation. It helps to be a Christian, though, to avoid despair. The Bible is the most optimistic, encouraging book in the world, with its promises that "nothing shall be impossible unto you" when we trust God to work alongside us.
But you mock reading the Bible more than once. You studied medicine. Would you mock consulting a medical text more than once? Or a dictionary more than once? The Bible is both beautiful, and profound, two reasons to keep reviewing it.
Our own liberties depend on restricting others' liberties
Regina Dinwiddie, R-KS extremely prolife, 3/17/2016 5:59 pm
Dave, I love you, but I don't agree. I think we should have a restricted immigration policy so that our country's liberties can stay in tact.
Furthermore, I do not agree with giving welfare to illegal immigrants, education to illegals without charge, food stamps to illegals, etc. etc.
We the people have worked for our Social Security and trusted the government to treat our FICA (big mistakes) accounts as a sort of loan to government to be paid with interest upon our retirement. Illegal immigration will break the Social Security accounts, we haven't had a raise in 3 years, and medicare. I do not agree with Socialized medicine or depending upon the government, but since we were forced to invest and trust this government with money that could have otherwise been invested and made a handsome retirement, instead, the elderly are living in poverty. We must take care of our own and prevent slipping into a globalist\one world society.
IMMIGRATION WITHOUT ASSIMILATION IS INVASION. That's what I believe.
Response: It is to the extent we honor the liberty of others that we secure our own
I wonder what you "don't agree" with? The article observes that voters and lawmakers trust the claims of Undocumented Economists rather than real economists on economic questions, and suggests we would better secure our own interests by trusting those who have most studied a subject to have the best grasp of it. Is that the suggestion you dispute? You think we secure our own best interests by following the relatively ignorant? Or do you dispute the fact that the economic dimension of our national immigration debate is dominated by Undocumented Economists? If the latter, please follow the links. The college majors of America's leading half-dozen Undocumented Economists are very easy to verify.
Or is it the consensus of real economists, that the economic impact of immigration isn't at all negative as Undocumented Economists insist, that you dispute?
My article did not, of course, say anything about welfare or food stamps. I have written about that elsewhere. Such as http://www.Saltshaker.US/HispanicHope/Win-WinSolution.pdf. But a word about Social Security: according to the Social Security Administration. Consider that every undocumented worker with a fake ID has 15% of his wages deducted for Social Security, very few of whom ever acquire the legal status that would qualify them to ever take anything. This adds up to $13 billion a year according to the Boston Globe, one of many articles that come up when I google "windful for social security from undocumented immigrants". An excerpt:
- The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration recently told Vice News that, out of the estimated 7 million unauthorized workers currently in the US labor force, about 3 million use either false or expired Social Security numbers. The payroll taxes paid by these unauthorized workers go into the Social Security’s “earnings suspense file” — in effect, money without a lawful home. “You could say legitimately that had we not received the contributions that we have had in the past from undocumented immigrants . . . that would of course diminish our ability to be paying benefits....
You are a Bible believer. You shouldn't need SSA testimony, or evidence from economists, to know what we give others is the measure of what we receive. Our Savior told us that plainly.
- Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Regina Dinwiddie, R-KCMO extremely prolife, 11:06 am, 3/22/2016
Alert: portions of this response have been greyed out because they are "personal attacks" which waste time for readers focused on facts and arguments. See Rules. For explanation, see Tips#No "personal attacks". For a Biblical perspective, see Scripture about "no personal attacks – attack nonsense"
Dave, I am so angry at what happened in Brussels which buttresses my previous reply.
You are an absolute idiot if you think that we can just open our borders in the name of kindness without acknowledging our Saviors admonition to "be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves".
My son was just in Europe during the Paris attacks and said he was amazed at the lack of security in Belgium. He said he just drove across the border, no one stopped or questioned him, in fact he wasn't even sure he had crossed the border. There has been no one kinder or more accepting of the Syrian refugees than Belgium-they took in 600,000 refugees. He said Europe didn't even resemble the Europe he had previously visited 4 years ago. Today, the tragedy in Belgium killed 34 at last count and injured hundreds. ISIS took credit for the attack. They are dogs that bite the hand that feeds them. Undoubtedly their will be some sort of war action because of these heartless attacks. Families in Belgium are holed up indoors and all travel has been halted. People are suffering untold sorrow and loss. ISIS declared war on a country that wanted only peace and kindness towards their fellow man. It was not reciprocated, in fact, they were warred on because of their ignorance.
It is your kind of globalist, one world, Kum by yah, stupid thinking that precipitated this kind of action.
Personally, I think your lack of knowledge of Bible is what leads you to this one world Peace that is dominating your thought process. It is only Jesus Christ that will bring the world peace you so tenaciously and without regard to your fellow Americans hold on to. Man cannot bring about a world peace or government and certainly can't save the world. You are trying to by pass the need of a Savior and put your goals in the hands of totally depraved man. It won't work.
We can avoid war in America by preventing such attacks on our soil by vetting all immigrants and closing our borders to our enemies. We need strong borders for our safety and theirs.
If your are indeed a Bible Wizard, you should be well aware of the fact that the Bible says in Daniel 8:25 "by peace he shall destroy many" of the Anti-Christ and his system.
God put the love of country in the hearts of man as a good and proper defense against war. We welcome friends, but they must prove to be true friends. "Peace, peace, when there is no peace" Jer. 6:13-16.
These things will happen, but we are to OCCUPY until the LORD comes.
If He did not shorten the time of His return there would be no flesh left on earth.
We who believe, look for our Blessed Hope, the Prince of Peace, Sar Shalom, to save us, not our own vain efforts.
The Bible is very specific about immigration policy.
- First, a note about my youtube username, "Biblewizard2", about which you remarked. How it came about was simply that when I started my channel, it asked for a username. All the usernames I wanted were already taken. It was getting frustrating. It seemed there was no name left in the world that was not already taken. (Out of respect, I didn't try yours.) So finally, half angry, I thought I would try something utterly crazy: Biblewizard. It was taken! So I tried "Biblewizard2", and I was in. (I just now checked for a Biblewizard3 channel, and the "channel does not exist". So so far, there are only two of us.)
- So now how shall I answer when people ask what I mean by such a handle?
- Well, the issue kind of took me by surprise. I'm still unprepared. How about this: "Calling yourself a Bible student is no more presumptuous than, as a sinner, calling myself a Christian. Logic would suggest God would never desire such a thing, since He would not want to be associated with us. But He invites it. Why? The label does not certify that we successfully live by the principles we preach. They are our pledge to move as close as we can to goals which are beyond us. Neither "Christian" nor "Biblewizard" are boasts, since the labels are more likely to embarrass our friends than to make them proud to know us.
Now to your points.
You quote Matthew 10:16, be wise as serpents. But the Bible is very specific about immigration policy. You have never told me whether you ever looked at my multi page Bible study on immigration, the Stranger Project, which I have asked you several times to review. Are we wise or foolish, to believe what God says is true, and to do what God says will benefit us? Surely if Christians must have a dispute, it ought to be over the correct meaning of verses, not about whether the verses are true or relevant. But if we don't quote them, how will that discussion begin?
For Christians like you and me, evaluating whether the immigration policy I advocate is wise, without first evaluating whether the Bible passages I have published are applied correctly, is like evaluating whether the Republican or Democrat position on abortion is right, without first evaluating whether life really does begin at conception. You say my "thinking" is "stupid", "one world", and "Kum-ba-yah". But what if it is Biblical? You can't dismiss a policy claimed to be Biblical, with pages and pages of Bible study to back it up, on your own authority. You have to address the verses cited. You have to explain how they are misapplied. You have to refute the policy by God's authority, not your own.
Otherwise you are in danger of calling God's immigration policy "stupid", "one world", and "Kum-ba-yah".
You write, "the Bible says in Daniel 8:25 'by peace he shall destroy many' of the Anti-Christ and his system." Then shouldn't we oppose Antichrist? Why should we Christians vote to fast-track technology like he will use to enslave and behead us? Don't you want E-Verify nationally mandated in order to catch illegals? Ted Cruz told me that without E-verify, his immigration goals can't be met. Do you agree? My studies of E-verify and the Bible's "Mark of the Beast" show that they are frighteningly similar. Besides the fact that it just plain doesn't work anyway - it doesn't reduce the "job magnet", while it does deprive citizens of jobs.
You write, "It is only Jesus Christ that will bring the world peace." It is always helpful, when you make a statement like that that sounds vaguely Biblical, if you would cite the verses which you think supports it. My Bible search turns up nothing like that verse. John 14:27 distinguishes between what the world calls "peace" and what Jesus calls "peace" which He already gives us.
Of course your statement is on the lips of many American Christians today, where it is generally given as absolute proof that Christians must not "get involved in politics". Football, TV, video games, fine; but not politics.
The broad brush it paints is illustrated by the fact that you use it here, imagining it is relevant, even though I have said nothing about "bringing the world peace". You say it as if you think it somehow refutes the immigration policy I have constructed by studying the facts upon which economists and the Bible agree. You want me to abandon that policy because it demonstrates somehow my Biblical ignorance of how "it is only Jesus Christ that will bring the world peace."
Even the grammar is deceptive. It can mean either "only Jesus can bring World Peace", meaning absolute peace all across the planet, which is not what the Bible says directly but it seems to be what the Bible describes. Or it can mean "only Jesus can bring any peace at all to any part of the world", which should be seen as obviously wrong, although this is the reading needed to justify Christians hiding their light under a bushel so it can't shine out into that Darkness we call "politics".
In Matthew 5 Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers". This statement acknowledges the existence of human beings other than Jesus who actually bring some degree of peace into their corner of the world.
Regarding the very popular assumption that God wants us to just go to church and tithe and pray for Him to take care of government corruption for us, here's what Isaiah says. Chapter 58 is a list of evils, some of which today we would classify as political. God says He is not interested in Christian rituals - our main ritual today is going to church and tithing - but if we want a ritual, how about the ritual of correcting all those evils that oppress your neighbor? Chapter 59 explains it isn't because He can't force us all to be good, and make us robots (I'm reading the implications between the lines) but how can He answer our prayers while our actions are the subjects of our victims' prayers? Then in verse 15 says God was "displeased" that His people are so unjust. Then verse 16 says God looked all around for humans to step forward and be heroes but saw no one. Then verse 17 says God was furious. He went ahead and brought some measure of justice, limited, we presume, but the fact that had he brought full justice we would all be dead, but God doesn't like being the only deliverer, all alone. He wants fellowship out on the front. So he helped, but in fury.
What happened in Brussels is not evidence that God's immigration policy is stupid, but perhaps rather that God's immigration policy wasn't followed. There is Biblical precedent for background checks, and for prosecuting incitement to crime. I have some suggestions at http://www.saltshaker.us/HispanicHope/Win-WinSolution.pdf. We can have a conversation about whether I have "rightly divided the word of truth". But if the Bible is not going to be our standard of common sense, and the research of real economists are rejected as our standard, what does that leave? Undocumented Economists. Islam is winning because it is unopposed by most Christians. It is unopposed mostly because most Christians don't see any more "peace" in their Bible than in the Koran. They think war against unbelievers, and execution of hereticks, is endorsed by the Bible, so even the few who are exposing the barbarity of the Koran are not explaining how the Bible is any different, so few realize it is.
The solution is to shine the Light of the Bible where it is darkest. You love the Bible. Let's, together, show folks how to do it.
Immigration is not just an economic issue
Immigration is not just an economic issue. That said, we need immigration reform, not what we have now where all manner of law is ignored.
Cathy Ramey, R-OR, prolife publisher 3/16/2016 9:07pm