blamonkey

I'm about as fluent in poetry as I am in Swahili. I'm married to the narrative structure of stories. Nevertheless, I will say that some stanzas seem to break the rhythmic structure of the poem. For example:

"Making our way the very next day, 

Our horse blessing us with a happy neigh"

seems to have a few too many syllables to me. When I write, and for the record I am no more qualified than you so take this with a grain of salt, I verbally repeat every paragraph. It doesn't always work, and sometimes I can't use this method due to time constraints, but it could be useful for shorter poetry. By verbalizing your work you can free up the syntax and diction a bit to make your piece more readable. Also, I agree with fauxlaw, you use a few too many cliches when writing (i.e. "with all our might," "as quiet as a mouse," "birds of a feather.") Make some unique metaphors. 

Instead of "as quiet as a mouse" how about "in apprehensive silence, the world seemed doused." Of course, this might not fit with the rhyme scheme, but just an example. 

I like how tangible your poem is. Too often, poetry takes the most circuitous path forward toward expressing anything, be it an idea or image. The fact that I can follow what you are saying tells me that you have ample talent. 

Oh, and I second Supa. Do not, under any circumstance, add emojis to your poem.

Eligibility requirements for food stamps are stringent, and the benefits provided are minute. Countable resources (including bank accounts) cannot exceed $2,250 dollars for someone to qualify for aid, sans any deductions (1). State rules vary, but for most, those who are unemployed need to actively seek work, and those that turn down potential job offers or reduce their working hours could lose their benefits (2). There are exceptions to the employment requirements (i.e. children, seniors, and other groups) but for able-bodied workers with dependents, there are work requirements that must be met (2).  Government outlays for food stamps do not necessarily provide ample aid to the destitute either, with SNAP benefits averaging about $256 a month, or about $1.40 a meal (and for households with disabled workers or seniors, it's often less) (3).

Due to workfare requirements and tepid benefits, most seek employment. When looking at employment figures for SNAP recipients in 2012, it was found that 52% worked, and nearly 3/4 worked in the last two years (4). The problem is that most SNAP recipients work in volatile, low-income job markets (5). With increased job displacement, many recipients have a "good" year followed by a "bad" one, which is why employment among SNAP recipients is syncopated and uneven. 

As far as "liberating" the homeless from poverty, you seriously overestimate employer's acceptance of homeless workers. SAMSHA reports that 26% of the homeless population suffers from a mental illness and 35% had a substance abuse disorder (6). Public ordinances tend to target homeless people too, with laws that outlaw solicitation, panhandling, living in vehicles, sleeping in public, and begging in public (7). Psychiatric problems are not just worsened by punitive measures (i.e. fines and court costs they cannot pay.) Psychiatric problems are also worsened by victimization. The homeless, particularly women and the mentally ill, are at extreme risk for violent and non-violent victimization, particularly sexual violence (9). Trauma of this magnitude worsens mental states, and many may cope with drugs and other dangerous activities. Moreover, many jobs require permanent addresses, which the homeless do not have, and employers maintain negative views of the homeless and formerly homeless. In a review of job discrimination against homeless people compiled by The Yale Law Journal, it was found that multiple employers, especially in food-service and other low-paying occupations, tend to exclude those that are homeless because they perceive them as less trustworthy and more likely to abuse drugs. So, when asking about permanent transportation and housing on applications, they tend to "follow up" with additional questions to ascertain whether an applicant has lived in an address for more than a few years, or if they have a car (8). Even the recently homeless are affected due to intrusive background checks into people's housing history (8).

The number of jobs is not unlimited (as Athias has already pointed out) and the kicker is that we don't know how many people are actually homeless. Sure, we can make estimates, but the actual number of people who do not have permanent dwellings is a difficult number to calculate because of numerous complicating factors including transience and faulty "counts" of homeless that usually take place in the last ten days in January done by scant volunteers, when the homeless try to seek temporary abodes to get out of the cold weather (10). HUD, until recently,  did not even include a rural designation in its data collection, which means plenty of rural, homeless people are likely not reported (10). Utah, a state that declared that there was "no more homelessness in the state" in 2015 recently had to rectify their statement, because, wouldn't you believe it, the state now struggles to provide enough temporary shelter for the homeless in their state (11). 

So, we don't know really how many people are homeless, so how are we to determine if the economy has generated enough jobs that a homeless person could feasibly fill given the bevy of factors that play into whether a homeless person gets a job? More to the point, while some jobs don't necessarily require degrees, won't these better educated Americans be in direct competition with the homeless? Who do you think they are going to hire, someone with an Associate's degree, or someone who shows up to a job interview who looks like they're homeless, and outright admit they don't have a permanent address? This is not to paint an unfavorable portrait of those that are less fortunate, its with great serendipity that so many can afford to live comfortably in this country, and those that fall through the cracks are no less deserving of a comfortable life (especially if they are precluded form the job market for factors that they cannot account for.) Instead, programs to rehabilitate and train homeless for jobs, providing tax breaks to firms that hire homeless people, and providing direct assistance (cash based or otherwise) should exist, and should be trying to place their clients in jobs and permanent abodes. 

Sources

1.https://eligibility.com/food-stamps

2.https://eligibility.com/food-stamps/do-the-employment-requirements-for-eligibility-apply-to-everyone

3.https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table

6.https://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/why.html

7.https://nlchp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/No_Safe_Place.pdf

8.https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5808&context=ylj

9.https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201200515

10.https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/07/04/736240349/in-rural-areas-homeless-people-are-harder-to-find-and-to-help

11.https://psmag.com/social-justice/why-cant-we-count-the-homeless-population

1. https://reason.com/2020/03/31/2-2-million-american-deaths-from-covid-19/

2.https://fortune.com/2020/04/09/coronavirus-reinfection-fears-grow-cured-patients-test-positive-reactivated-virus/

1.https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

2.https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

3.https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/838794281/study-raises-questions-about-false-negatives-from-quick-covid-19-test

4.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/17/fact-check-covid-19-death-toll-likely-undercounted-not-overcounted/2973481001/

5.https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/04/20/covid-count

6.https://abcnews.go.com/Health/1st-covid-19-death-us-weeks-earlier-previously/story?id=70292360

7.https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/22/us/22reuters-health-coronavirus-usa-california.html

The crux of your argument seems to rest on the idea that as long as less than 4 million people die, there are other issues more deserving of our attention. By that premise, no single disease or cause of death is important enough to consider taking action against, not obesity, suicide rates, or cancer. 2.8 million people died in the US in 2017 for a variety of reasons. Should we stop pursuing treatments to cancer since it only impacts so many people? How about treatment for those suffering form major depressive disorder? Surely, resources could be allocated elsewhere if we only care about the 4 million figure. Covid-19 kills more people per day than anything else as of now (2). It could be/get worse. Irrespective of this 4 million figure, there is ample reason to treat this outbreak as fairly serious even if it doesn't kill as many people as a nuclear bomb. 

Thankfully, the full impact of the virus is hampered by stay at home orders, but reversing them will cause spikes in contraction of the virus and death. Increasing hospitalization rates will overwhelm medical institutions, which I'd imagine would not be good for the economy given our aging workforce. Also, in the event that we did hypothetically open the entire country to business, how many people would be willing to go to the theaters? How about bars and restaurants? In the intervening time, while companies are waiting for consumer demand to normalize, these businesses will need to pay for employees, and quite a few would be furloughed if businesses are unable to pay them. What happens then? Declining sales are evident even among essential businesses, such as retailers (6). There were also signs of falling restaurant bookings even before shutdown measures were introduced, but after it was known that Covid-19 was surfacing (7). Who wants to fly now? Who wants to go on a cruise now? Probably nobody. The threat of losing jobs and falling income prevent many from making contributing to consumption, the largest component of our GDP. 

Sources

1. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929

2. https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-leading-cause-of-death.html

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/08/young-people-coronavirus-deaths/

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/
5.https://www.ibtimes.com/coronavirus-usa-more-700-young-americans-have-died-covid-19-2956103

6. https://nypost.com/2020/04/15/us-retail-sales-see-biggest-drop-ever-amid-coronavirus-crisis/

7.https://nypost.com/2020/04/15/us-retail-sales-see-biggest-drop-ever-amid-coronavirus-crisis/

Less than 4,000 people die each year to swimming pools in the US, a portion of which we can consider youths, but this is figure is all-inclusive, including adults as well (1). The virus has already claimed the lives of nearly 50,000 people in a matter of months (6). There are a reported 33,000 death that remain unaccounted for in the worldwide death toll, which means this 50,000 figure may be a conservative estimate (3). The predicted death toll in the US is between 60 and 200 thousand deaths (4). If the virus falls within that range, it would almost certainly make the top ten list for leading causes of death in the US (5). Rampant testing failures and "hidden" outbreaks of the virus in the US may push the death toll much higher (6).

Whether the virus is overblown or not, it will kill thousands more than swimming pool accidents. Given the tacit approval of some states to re-open bars, restaurants, etc. this figure may skyrocket. 

Sources

1.https://www.edgarsnyder.com/statistics/swimming-pool-statistics.html

2.https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

1.https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2020/04/5g-whats-behind-the-latest-covid-conspiracy-theory/

2.https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

“so we know if things don't go as planned, it’s not going to kill anybody.”

A cursory search indicates that Sweden has discontinued chloroquine trials due to worsening conditions amongst afflicted patients (1). It's also no secret that chloroquine and its derivatives could potentially lead to cardiac complications. Ackerman of the Mayo Clinic estimated that roughly 10% of the US population is vulnerable to prolonging the split-second interval between electrical charges of the heart, which, if prolonged beyond 500 milliseconds, could cause arrhythmia and subsequent death (4). The percentage may seem small, but given that Covid-19 has spread to nearly half a million (5) (if not more) in the US, 10% is a lot if people are starting to buy in bulk and administer the drug themselves with no physician guidance or prescription. The three studies widely cited to showcase chloroquine's potential are tarnished with methodological flaws which include: lacking a control group, not conducting a blind study, and even an instance in which patients selected for a study were likely to recover irrespective of any administered treatment (3).

So, to an extent, taking the drug can kill you. I don't get why people are lambasting critics for being cynical when it comes to chloroquine. I despise being cloistered between four walls. I detest the fact that I may no longer have a job because the theater I worked at has shuttered. In fact, I hope that chloroquine or some other drug is found to effectively treat people. However, when someone speaks under the auspices of a government body, particularly when they occupy an illustrious position in said government, they need to exhibit restraint and caution. If the White House said something along the lines of "anecdotal evidence suggests that chloroquine might save lives," I would be all for it. Notice the qualifiers though. People can imbue a feeling of hope and still present the facts. However, ambivalent, and sometimes contradictory rhetoric doesn't instill hope. People panicked and bought the drug en masse, depriving others of a treatment for lupus and arthritis (6). That said, if I'm proven wrong and the drug saves 100% of people in the future, then that is fine with me. My objection is not with administering the drug, it's purely with the ill-advised recommendation at such an early stage.

I'd like to hear what whiteflame has to say about the potential side effect given his expertise. Hint hint nudge nudge.

In regards to the wall, physical boundaries did not present much of an obstacle in the past, even with border patrol surges. In fact, many coyotes, human smugglers, have circumvented physical barriers (7). Not only do some cartels consider coyotes indispensable as drug trafficking (10), not only do cartels directly profit through "taxes" on migrants for passing through their territory to get to the US (9), but prices for human smuggling into the US have not deterred people from relying on the service (8). The message that is being expressed loud and clear by these groups is:

"Get here before he builds the wall" (8).

Could there be an effective wall policy? Maybe. It would require lots of people to be hired, and the attrition rate is particularly high in certain places that need to be staffed, and the hiring process can span on for hundreds of days (11). CBP data also shows that 56% of applicants fail the background check too. Previously, the Bush administration loosened hiring restrictions on the CBP citing national security concerns. However, when that happened, crime and corruption in the DHS surfaced. 809 complaints were obtained by the American Immigration Council, and over 90% were left un-investigated, often due to staff shortages (11). Also, following the loosened standards, the numbers of CBP employees arrested for misconduct, off-duty crime, and civil rights violations increased by 44% (11). Over 200 DHS employees took in $15 million dollars worth of bribes from smugglers, and over 1,000 complaints of excessive force have been levied against the organization (11). The citation I have adduced is a veritable cornucopia of past failings that have not been addressed.

I have really no interest in what the Dems or Republicans (Reps maybe?) are doing. Both parties have their own anathemas. I guess I shouldn't be so acerbic, but the political saber rattling is the least interesting aspect of this debacle. 

Sources

1.https://www.ibtimes.sg/coronavirus-swedish-hospitals-stop-chloroquine-trials-patients-complain-dangerous-side-effects-42679

2.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29858838

5.https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html

6.https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/20/hospitals-doctors-are-wiping-out-supplies-an-unproven-coronavirus-treatment/

7.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5049707/

11.https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697349.pdf

12.https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-caution-needed-hiring-additional-border-patrol-agents-and-ice-officers

Slavery was bad for the South's economy, sure, but do you think that keeping California in the US is equally harmful? I don't think reconciliation between the rest of the US and California is necessarily impossible either as it was with the South. There's been no equivalent of "Bleeding Kansas" to separate the interests of California and the rest of the US. In fact, while California is a stalwart defender of their own interests, and may violate national law by declaring sanctuary status, other states have done so to. Many have legalized marijuana partially as well, even it infringes the Controlled Substance Act's Scheduling chart (1), and many more have enacted abortion laws that contravene SCOTUS precedent (2). It might behoove the federal government to be more receptive of state interests when forging policy, or allow some leeway in enforcement.

If California were to leave, there would also be culture shifts related to economic shocks. Generally speaking, poverty trends upwards with crime. While not a clear-cut case of correlation, it's not a stretch to suggest that crime could spike as a result of such an economic shock. California would need to forge its own government structure and constitution, be saddled with debt that will likely never be paid back, and lose access to the US army. The US mainland would have to cope with the loss of the agricultural giant, probably experience an influx of migrants from California  (probably many people who want to emigrate to California too), and would appear weaker to state actors. 

America is polarized, no doubt, and states have differing goals. But this is not the most divisive moment in American history, that prize still goes to Reconstruction for obvious reasons. No issue today could possibly hope to be as salient as the slavery issue. Pundits may abjure opposing political sides and lambaste eachother at a disquieting pace, but we've steered clear of assassination, Congressional brawls, and thousands of lynchings. If the Confederates could reconcile their differences with the Union, I don't see why California and the rest of the US can't.

Sources

1. https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling

I don't know. The fiscal consequences of California's expulsion from the US would be steep to both the US mainland and the hypothetically seceded California. The state contributes nearly 15% of all federal tax revenue (1), has the largest agricultural industry of any state (2), and would likely be subject to tariffs, posing a costly impediment to trade. The effect of imposed tariffs will no doubt be massive given that California is solely responsible for 10% of US exports (4). Granted, California is the largest recipient of federal aid (in total the aid is roughly $47 billion dollars), but the tax revenue provided by California is an imposing edifice in comparison to the tiny sand castle of aid given to California (compare $45 billion dollars in aid (3) to $234 billion dollars in taxes paid to Uncle Sam (5). Also, when measuring federal funding per capita, California is actually the 10th lowest funded state, while Virginia, Kentucky, and New Mexico have the most (3).

1.https://www.money-rates.com/research-center/federal-income-taxes-by-state.htm

2.https://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs/

Well, some religions are considered nationalities, races, or ethnicities per a recent executive order (1). The order protected Jews from anti-antisemitism under title VI the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which protects nationality, race, and ethnicity, but not religion. So, should this executive order extend to other religions? Also, is the discrimination faced by Muslims throughout the Western world largely due to their skin color? Preconceptions about what a Muslim looks like tend to create skewed schemas. So a Muslim with Brown skin may experience more discrimination then say, a white-skinned Muslim. In the latter case, it may be that people simply assume that Muslims cannot be white, or that the probability of meeting a white Muslim is slim. 

1.https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/12/19/is-judaism-an-ethnicity-race-nationality-trump-signs-an-order-provokes-an-identity-crisis/

Your series of queries took a bit longer. I don't want to seem obtuse, but your diction confused me a bit. But sure, I'll bite.

2. Or have social improvements like assumed morality, only ever been defined  by conceptual collectivism?

To an extent, the assumed morality of an idea is governed by moral collectivism to the public at large. It wasn't until recently that homosexuality was deemed moral by the plurality of the public. So, was it moral to have homosexual relations before certain precedents were established and pro-gay attitudes were instilled in the people? I would say so, but that is a highly individualized opinion that was not informed by the majority of society but through conversations with homosexuals, my own study of the issue, and my parents (probably). That said, the public perception of a moral dilemma does contribute mostly to how many issues are thought of, including their moral quality.

3. But can we actually differentiate between physiology and data, given the nature of the human condition?

That depends on what you categorize as data. If you mean the assumed facts of human and societal development, then there great interplay between data and humans, but they are still separate. 

4. Nonetheless, in the context of a wider society and therefore also in the context of moral relativism wherein lies the collective moral judgement?

The relativist might posit that societies dictate morality to an extent, but that no principle or measure of morality is supreme to another. One could anchor themselves to utilitarianism or deontology and still be considered morally right in some context. In regards to society, only normative relativism champions the idea that morality should be dictated by societal needs. However, relativism also suggests that people not chastise or denigrate societies that adopt dissimilar viewpoints as they are equally valid given the context, development, and culture of a state. 

5. Has it become inherent, or is it only acquired and affective?

Do you mean moral judgement? Well, moral development does occur in infants. Parental figures are able to imbue certain moral traits into their offspring by simply modeling behavior for their children (1). So, to an extent, people's personal ideologies are acquired. However, whether their acquired perspective can be considered "right" is an entirely separate issue. People like to stick to their beliefs, but they will go out of their way to rationalize bad behavior as if there were an invisible audience. Are people born with a moral compass? I don't know, and if we are, proving it would be difficult. 

I hope I answered your questions. I am confused what you mean by data.

1.https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_parents_influence_early_moral_development

Ah, perhaps I should clarify. I meant to say that there are few instruments for measuring morality. What is the best perspective to anchor oneself to tor reach a moral conclusion? Utilitarianism? Deontology? I'd say the moral framework should match the problem at hand, but that is an inexact science. Also, finding an immutable moral truth can run the gamut of simple (i.e. it is morally wrong to commit genocide) to difficult (i.e. violent measures are permissible in the face of injustice). I can see plenty of gray area in anchoring oneself to an appropriate idea and in debating the morality of the latter issue. While violent revolutions can be justified on the basis of deposing of a virulent despot, it probably would not stand to reason that an insurrection should follow one or two policy errors, particularly if the person can be voted out democratically (predicated, of course, on reasonable election security.) Relativism would suggest that both perspectives are partly true, and I think in this case, that approximates the truth more than one side being wrong and the other being right. 

Also, I doubt that humans could possibly perceive the absolute rules of morality given culture and context. I mean, if you asked someone if it was a universal truth that homosexuals were mentally ill, you would probably get a different answer today than if you asked 40 years ago. To me, that illustrates that if there are universal truths, many of them are likely undiscovered and impossible to test because we are fettered to the status quo. 

Objectivity is a morally sound idea though, as are the problems you list on relativism. I tend to stay ambivalent on issues of philosophy though, so perhaps that taints my perspective to an extent. 

I buy that there are problems with the idea of moral relativism, but it seems that the objections posed here are not necessarily indicative of some contradiction in the moral principle. Is moral relativism only able to affirm the rules of a given society? I thought that moral relativism extolled the importance of considering context when deeming something moral or immoral. While law is one such factor, it is not the only one. What you describe would be a sub-sect of moral relativism known as normative relativism, which espouses the importance of a society above all else (1). Moral relativism is the principle by which we ascertain the moral value of something predicated on a particular perspective (1). If I am a proponent of equality, for example, I am able to determine that racism is morally wrong.

Problem 2 posits that an external method of gauging morality is necessary for a society to improve. I agree. One could measure the improvement in a society through a particular perspective (i.e. denying basic rights to people is flagrant abuse.) This doesn't invalidate moral relativism because a particular perspective is being adopted to justify action/inaction on remedying a social problem.

Problem 3 deals partly with religion and atheism, which I avoid on principle. 

Here is my primary qualm with moral relativism: it proposes that no one perspective is superior to another. Sure, you could measure morality based off one's own perspective, but that is the inherent flaw of the philosophical principle: some perspectives promote deleterious ideas and policies. Should the perspective of an ardent racist matter in the ongoing debate on racial equality? What about someone with little-to-no knowledge on the subject? If this is the conclusion you were driving at, I would agree with it. 

Moral Objectivity has its own bugbears too. There are hundreds of people who would disagree over the fundamental rules of the universe, and one's own perspective plays a large role into what we deem a universal truth. It's difficult to excise one's own self-serving beliefs and ideas when debating what is objectively immoral, particularly when we participate in acts that other would deem immoral. If there are moral rules, I doubt that people can conceivably understand them all. That's why debates are still surfacing about moral problems that have existed since antiquity. There are some that are plainly obvious. I mean, most people are opposed to genocide, and I would be one of them.

Absolute adherence to any idea seems to be the problem. 

Sources
1. https://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#SH4d

1.https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm

2.https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/divorce-united-states-dropping-because-millennials/

3.https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/babies

4.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/are-childfree-couples-doo_b_913051

I never brought up Planned Parenthood. Although, since we are comparing organizations, it should be noted that Tanton's influence was far greater than that of Sanger. The common attack against Sanger is her alleged support for "black genocide" (which is funny given her support for the civil rights movement.) Does that match with the actual data? Not really. White people are more likely to have abortions when compared to other races. (1). Besides, Planned Parenthood offers more services than abortions. Planned Parenthood clinics offer medical services including early screenings for cancer. On the other hand, the CIS, FAIR, and NumbersUSA are all inextricably linked to Tanton and his ideology. He handpicked people to lead his numerous organizations. If we are comparing sources, the fact that conservative publications criticize the CIS is indicative of how untrustworthy the source actually is. The numerous fact-checks that basically invalidate large swaths of their research from reputable sources (including people who actually study immigration for a living) also speaks to the level of academic rigor they use in their research. I brought this up originally because of your criticisms of the CATO Institute, which I agree with. Most think-tanks are biased toward their causes and those investing in them. Yet, the CATO Institute's record is less spotty than that of the CIS. Think of it like a bruised apple. CATO may represent a fruit with a few dents and bruises, but its still edible. If the CIS were an apple, it would resemble a lush, delectable apple, but once you peel back the skin you would realize that it is filled with maggots, cheese, and the ashes of a dead relative.

1. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortions-by-race/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

2.https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-overstates-immigrant-non-citizen-native-welfare-use

3.https://www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE020673/Defining_the_Limited_Englis__.pdf

4. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cspan_fb_slides.pdf

5.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/10/2018-21106/inadmissibility-on-public-charge-grounds

Even if the limited English proficiency of illegalimmigrants was true, it doesn’t seem to have a significant impact. Immigrants havea propensity to take jobs that aren’t in direct competition with native-bornpeople (9 pg 266). While it is true that many immigrants are not paying incometax because their pay is so low, it is also true that employers are payingpayroll taxes to the government, that immigrants need to purchase food, water,and medicine which bolsters business growth and could add jobs to the laborforce, and that immigrant entrepreneurs have had considerable success increating profitable small businesses (10). A holistic analysis from the NationalAcademies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine found that the total fiscalstimulus of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants was over$200 billion dollars in tax revenue (11). Admittedly, there was a cost incurredwhen calculating the fiscal contributions of the first-generation immigrant,which was roughly ¼ of the stimulus provided by second and third generationimmigrants. However, as the study notes:

“An immigrant and a native-born person with similar characteristics will likelyhave about the same fiscal impact. Persons with higher levels of educationcontribute more positively to government finances regardless of theirgenerational status. Furthermore, within age and education categories,immigrants generally have a more salutary effect on budgets because they aredisqualified from some benefit programs and because their children tend to havehigher levels of education, earnings, and tax paying than the children ofsimilar third-plus generation adults” (11).

You claim that taking in less legal immigrants could lessenthe burden on the USCIS. This doesn’t address the issues related to the bloatedbureaucracy, increased Requests for Evidence, and the lack of manpower. Also,placing a limit on those entering the US does not address renewals, naturalizationsetc. If we streamlined the process to get into the US legally, there would beless people hopping the border or overstaying their visa. After 1965, when theUS placed its first static cap on immigration, illegal immigration flourishedbecause legal entry was impossible, and Mexico’s fiscal situation drove people tofind a better life elsewhere (12). We don’t need to enact an open-border policy.We need a process that doesn’t require as many complex and redundant forms. Weneed a non-static cap on work visas that can adjust to the demand for them. Weneed a USCIS that doesn’t take 14 years to get back to potential applicants totell them that they wasted over $1,000 in fees to enter the US (13).

As far as more infrastructure spending, I’m in two mindsabout it. Most infrastructure projects invariably exceed their fundingestimates. That said, they can also create jobs, investment, and other thingsthat economists and business tycoons froth in the mouth over. I hope I don’t comeoff as too pointed. I wrote this after a particularly annoying family member decidedto shriek for 20-30 minutes about politics and drink irresponsibly. That seemsto be all he does.

1. https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/h-1b-workers-highly-skilled-highly-needed

2. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-immigration-study-misleading-negative-2007dec16-story.html

3. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Fund#cite_ref-May_10-0

5. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2010/05/12/fair-files-working-pioneer-fund

6. https://www.splcenter.org/20090131/nativist-lobby-three-faces-intolerance#cis

7. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/chart/immigrant-statistical-portrait-english-proficiency-among-u-s-immigrants/

8. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states

9. https://www.nap.edu/read/21746/chapter/8#266

10. http://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Billion-Dollar-Startups.NFAP-Policy-Brief.March-2016.pdf

11. https://www.nap.edu/read/23550/chapter/2#11

12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5049707/

13. https://alaskalandmine.com/landmines/immigration-law-is-a-mystery-and-a-mastery-of-obfuscation/

Whilethe CATO Institute is biased, I contend that CIS is as bad if not worse. The CISis surreptitiously cloaked in a scholarly demeanor but is known to fail fact-checkslike WoW addicts fail to be productive members of society. On one occasion, the conservative Heritage Foundation criticized theCIS and its analysis (1). These numerical gaffes (or intentional misinformationdepending on your opinion of the organization and its goal) also extends toimmigration welfare. A 2007 CIS analysis posited that immigrants disproportionatelybenefitted from welfare programs. Yet:

"once 'welfare usage' is disaggregated, as Camarota does in a table nearthe end of his report, we see that food assistance is the only category inwhich there is a significant difference between immigrant- and native-headedhouseholds. Immigrants are significantly less likely than natives to useMedicaid, and they use subsidized housing and cash assistance programs at aboutthe same (low) rate as natives" (2).

These views are not surprising at all given the history of the organization. JohnTanton, one of the co-founders of CIS, has spent the latter part of his lifefighting against most immigration policies. He repeatedly claims the importanceof a European-American majority (3), has advocated for eugenics, and funded hisnumerous organization (FAIR, NumbersUSA, CIS,) through the Pioneer Fund (5). Thelast of which is interesting considering that the Pioneer Fund was in part inspiredby the Nazi party’s eugenics experiment, and one person’s recollection that “wishedto prove simply that Negroes were inferior” (4). This attitude is mimicked bythe CIS too. In one report, they refer to foreign women as “third-world golddiggers” (6) which to me sounds like idiotic dross that would brand anyorganization that uses it as unreliable.

Oh, I do suppose that the organization is independent,despite being funded by Tanton and with hand-picked members serving in advisoryroles who agree with his position.

Should this discredit them? I don’t know. I will say that even if the CATO Instituteis biased, it carries less monocle-popping controversial baggage than the troublinghistory of the CIS.

You offer a few studies that indicate that immigrants areunable to speak English. Your Pew research doesn’t mention that the data isbased off survey data. The Limited English Proficiency test is a survey thatasks participants to rank their grasp of English as “not at all” “not well” “well”or “very well.” Participants who only speak English at home and answer thattheir grasp of English is “well” are the only one’s considered proficient (7)(8). Why can’t people who speak the language “well” qualify as English proficient?I also find it weird that the LEP’s target population of study happens to be thoseaged 5 and up. That is a wide range of people to be testing.

A glance at the immigration bureaucracy suggests that the policy may cause more problems than it solves. Increased reporting requirements in the past proved to be a contributing factor to the ongoing application backlog afflicting the USCIS, and the inexorable truth is that increased requirements are going to be necessary to determine whether someone is "self-sufficient." The National Law Review reported that in the FY 2018, the backlog grew to over 5 million, a 26% increase from 2016 (3). Requests for Evidence for H1-B visas and the complexity of immigration petitions are culpable for much of the growing backlog. There are no set guidelines to ascertain who is likely to become a public charge and who isn't. Vague guidelines coupled with inexact reporting requirements (everything from ability to pay for private medical insurance to pre-existing medical conditions are used to determine if an immigrant has a negative "strike," and it is unclear where they get this info,) and increased processing time will only shovel more forms into the cornucopia of paperwork that the USCIS is tasked with finishing. Requiring more resources to deal with this ballooning backlog is a significant cost. Instead of reforming their resource-intensive guidelines, the USCIS modus operandi in dealing with the backlog has been to hike immigration fees on both businesses dependent on employment-based visas and the applicants (4) (5). Saddling businesses with a burdensome fee deters them from hiring immigrants, which seems contrary to the purpose of the policy. Surely we should encourage immigrants who are willing to work to emigrate to the US. Also, by deterring immigrants to enter through legal pathways into the US, we increase the chance that they use coyotes, (human smugglers with unmatched knowledge of our border policies) to enter the US illegally. Many of these coyotes are on the payroll of Mexican cartels, and supply millions of dollars in revenue to their perfidious employers (6).

2.https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-public-benefits-can-green-card-holder-receive.html

That was worded weirdly. Let me give an example.

If the US were to intervene as a first response to a perceived problem instead of looking for less intrusive alternatives with a lower price tag, I would consider that strict adherence against the Prime Directive.