The trouble with immigration with a lifetime benefits ban is that sooner or later the Democrats will be in power and the lifetime ban will be abolished, without expelling the migrants admitted under it. And everybody knows it now, so a lifetime benefits ban is off the table.
In the same way, there is no defense treaty Republicans can make (not that they make treaties anymore) that subsequent Democrats will feel bound by (as we know from the fate of South Vietnam).
And there is no substituting capital punishment with life in prison without parole because (in the immortal words of Sideshow Bob) "Sooner or later the Democrats will get in and I'm out of here."
Sooner or later, every disempowered group living in the US eventually become citizens. I think partly it traces to our founding belief that all men are created equal. I don't think Americans would be at all comfortable with the idea of a permanently disenfranchised population, even if consoled by the thought that they are strictly economically better off than in their home countries.
They might not be comfortable with it, but it's important to get the thought right. They wouldn't be permanently disenfranchised. They would be permanently prevented from getting welfare.
A permanent lifetime ban (of anything) would have to be put beyond politics. In the constitution, say, which is effectively beyond politics. That would be hard to do and hard to justify, but it would allow them to be enfranchised but still banned from benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I am arguing *against* permanent lifetime ban immigration.
They'll be able to vote for their own welfare. As I understand it, though, Bryan was not advocating taking away their vote. But it's possible that I misunderstood.
"Seriously, if Trump’s central immigration policy had been “Amnesty with a lifetime welfare ban,” it plausibly could have won the support of enough Democrats to break the filibuster. Assuming, of course, that Republicans went along with it."
You should be embarrassed to write something you absolutely know isn't remotely reasonable and retract it.
Most people who use economics to justify immigration of whatever description are fine with it as long as it doesn't directly affect them. This list includes professions (academic, legal, medical), as well as executive business positions and government bureaucracies. The licensure that protects them remains in effect regardless of immigration policy. Pro-immigrationists, without challenge, use history and statistics much as the drunk does with the lamppost, more for support than illumination. They could learn from many people other than Mr. Hankinson. Maybe they should read Ann Coulter on the subject?
What you say may be true, or not. But that does not affect the truth, or otherwise, of what they say; the validity, or otherwise, of their arguments; or the persuasiveness, or otherwise, of their evidence.
Directing your argument to what their incentives or motives are, or who they are, is precisely the fallacy of *argumentum ad hominem.* Stop now, before it becomes a habit.
Also, as Bryan has pointed out many times, one of the markets with the least restricted immigration is the academic market. So right now, he does compete with immigrants.
The trouble with immigration with a lifetime benefits ban is that sooner or later the Democrats will be in power and the lifetime ban will be abolished, without expelling the migrants admitted under it. And everybody knows it now, so a lifetime benefits ban is off the table.
In the same way, there is no defense treaty Republicans can make (not that they make treaties anymore) that subsequent Democrats will feel bound by (as we know from the fate of South Vietnam).
And there is no substituting capital punishment with life in prison without parole because (in the immortal words of Sideshow Bob) "Sooner or later the Democrats will get in and I'm out of here."
Sooner or later, every disempowered group living in the US eventually become citizens. I think partly it traces to our founding belief that all men are created equal. I don't think Americans would be at all comfortable with the idea of a permanently disenfranchised population, even if consoled by the thought that they are strictly economically better off than in their home countries.
They might not be comfortable with it, but it's important to get the thought right. They wouldn't be permanently disenfranchised. They would be permanently prevented from getting welfare.
"wouldn't be permanently disenfranchised"
So they will be able to vote, but they won't vote for their own welfare?
A permanent lifetime ban (of anything) would have to be put beyond politics. In the constitution, say, which is effectively beyond politics. That would be hard to do and hard to justify, but it would allow them to be enfranchised but still banned from benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I am arguing *against* permanent lifetime ban immigration.
They'll be able to vote for their own welfare. As I understand it, though, Bryan was not advocating taking away their vote. But it's possible that I misunderstood.
I thought you liked Mark Krikorian on a personal level?
"Seriously, if Trump’s central immigration policy had been “Amnesty with a lifetime welfare ban,” it plausibly could have won the support of enough Democrats to break the filibuster. Assuming, of course, that Republicans went along with it."
You should be embarrassed to write something you absolutely know isn't remotely reasonable and retract it.
Most people who use economics to justify immigration of whatever description are fine with it as long as it doesn't directly affect them. This list includes professions (academic, legal, medical), as well as executive business positions and government bureaucracies. The licensure that protects them remains in effect regardless of immigration policy. Pro-immigrationists, without challenge, use history and statistics much as the drunk does with the lamppost, more for support than illumination. They could learn from many people other than Mr. Hankinson. Maybe they should read Ann Coulter on the subject?
What you say may be true, or not. But that does not affect the truth, or otherwise, of what they say; the validity, or otherwise, of their arguments; or the persuasiveness, or otherwise, of their evidence.
Directing your argument to what their incentives or motives are, or who they are, is precisely the fallacy of *argumentum ad hominem.* Stop now, before it becomes a habit.
Also, as Bryan has pointed out many times, one of the markets with the least restricted immigration is the academic market. So right now, he does compete with immigrants.
Interesting, and I dare say correct, but for the same reason irrelevant.