Fun with Immigration

by wj

My eye hit this article, and . . . words fail me.

President Trump ordered major changes to U.S. asylum policies in a White House memo released Monday night, including measures that would charge fees to those applying for humanitarian refuge in the United States.

How can anyone think that refugees and others seeking asylum are going to be awash in cash, so they can afford a fee to apply??? In what universe?

But then, maybe this is merely another approach to limiting asylum -- which appears to be a serious Trump/Miller goal. One which doesn't require admitting to being utterly lacking in empathy for these desperate people. Like (another of today's actions) giving the immigration courts a 180 limit to deal with cases . . . without providing additional judges, which might make reducing the waiting time feasible.

Immigration looks increasingly like the issue, other than health care, which Democrats can most profitably use to differentiate themselves in 2020. See also https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-democrats-win-on-immigration-policy-in-2020/

Comments

[Girl from the North Country]

I think there's a pretty good chance Trump doesn't understand what asylum is. Not that I think it would make him any more empathetic if he did, but I'm not sure he's understood the concept. Miller, on the other hand....

[John D. Thullen]

"https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/apa-guidelines-men-boys.html"

The same universe that permits police forces and criminal court systems to jail poor Americans for not paying, or falling behind on previous inflated fees, and then forces them to pay a fee to be released from jail, so they can be arrested again for not having the money to once again try to pay off the previous fees.

The same universe: The United States of America of small print where the bullshit lives.

There is small print in the founding documents that sez we can blow the entire edifice to smithereens any damned time we find it a burden, but only after paying a smithereens fee, a release-from-burden surcharge, a $100 per aspirin for pain and suffering, and a corkage charge.

We are a nation of predators and the filth who presume to lead us point to the Bible and the Constitution and various Russian pop writers of quackery as proof that our predatory natures and acts are divinely inspired and should never be limited.

We deserve a larger predator to come along and devour us.

We're sick fucks.

[John D. Thullen]

Ignore that cite. I was re-arranging my favorites.

Rather, "In what universe?" was the question I was answering.

America is the asylum. We're committed lunatics. But we are fed better than sane people outside the country so they are willing to put with sociopathic mofos like us because they need the eggs.

[Hartmut]

Millionaire refugees are naturally welcome (unless they are Hungarian Jews of course).

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"measures that would charge fees to those applying for humanitarian refuge in the United States."

Thar's griftin's in them-thar refugees, sez Trump.

[wj]

Once again (admittedly on a different topic) "words fail me."

A new fundraising pitch for Roy Moore, the Republican who lost a special Senate election in Alabama amid accusations of sexual misconduct in the 1970s, cites the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh as a reason he might run again next year.

Perhaps Senator Jones, and Democrats generally, will get an unlooked-for gift next year.

[John D. Thullen]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jacob-wohls-business-plan-make-shit-up-to-game-political-betting-sites?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

The republican conservative movement is a worldwide criminal syndicate.

Kill it.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Jacob Wohl is one of those people whose inclinations and abilities should lead inevitably to getting a Darwin Award.

Just wish he'd hurry up.

[russell]

"always be grifting!"

[CharlesWT]

"From the excellent Twitter account Ninja Economics comes the incredible chart below showing that "for the first time ever there are now more people in the world older than 65 than younger than 5."

At first blush, this might seem like a vaguely interesting fact and not much else. But in reality, this development will affect virtually every aspect of our future lives. First and foremost, it means that the global human population will start to fall, since aging populations have fewer kids. We'll likely reach a peak population of under 10 billion people around 2070.

The impact on the world's economy will be staggering, especially since there are effectively no known cases where long-term economic growth takes place against the backdrop of a shrinking population. Individual countries might prosper if they can lure more people to move within their borders, but the whole planet may start to resemble Japan, which is 30 years into its "lost decade" of weak economic growth and population decline."
This One Chart About Global Aging Changes Everything: "For the first time ever there are now more people in the world older than 65 than younger than 5."

[wj]

The impact on the world's economy will be staggering, especially since there are effectively no known cases where long-term economic growth takes place against the backdrop of a shrinking population.

It occurs to me to wonder: How many cases are there where the population shrunk, not because of war, disease, famine, etc., but because people simply decided to have fewer children? (The other causes will predictably have a negative impact on the economy, separately from whatever impact the shrinking population has.)

Granted the total (as opposed to per capita!) size of the economy will grow more, other things being equal, if the population is growing. But it isn't obvious why voluntary population stability (or shrinkage) would necessarily damage the economy.

[CharlesWT]

Countervailing aspects are people living and working to older ages, automation, robotics, and AI, populations becoming more urbanized.

[russell]

there are effectively no known cases where long-term economic growth takes place against the backdrop of a shrinking population.

If there are fewer people, why is a smaller, or even just non-growing, economy bad?

[John D. Thullen]

When did Steve Buscemi become the face of global population stagnation?

The article also makes a point of declaring we aging funsters "SDT-ridden" if "current trends hold".

This is not a trend I'm familiar with. Is there a hotline?

I stopped reading.

I'm willing to put up with the population leveling off, as long as it is accomplished by disappearing the troublesome priests and pox of conservatism and their drive to take away condoms and other protection.

[wj]

If there are fewer people, why is a smaller, or even just non-growing, economy bad?

I think we're just so accustomed to growing populations that we assume that, if the total economy is shrinking, the per capita economy must be shrinking, too.

But I have noticed, in some circles, an allergy to looking at per capita numbers. I think they tend not to follow the desired theology....

[Nigel]

“How many cases are there...?”

At the individual country level, Japan and Italy for certain:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

[cleek]

This is not a trend I'm familiar with.

that's probably for the best

[bobbyp]

there are effectively no known cases where long-term economic growth takes place against the backdrop of a shrinking population.

In theory, productivity growth can offset this.

Looks like the Georgia GOP finally went there.

The GOP needs to be crushed. FREEDOM!

[bobbyp]

If there are fewer people, why is a smaller, or even just non-growing, economy bad?

Without ongoing growth, capitalism dies.

[cleek]

the Georgia GOP finally went there.

the libs made 'em do it.

[hairshirthedonist]

But I have noticed, in some circles, an allergy to looking at per capita numbers.

I'm not sure how you otherwise compare national economies when the nations being compared differ in population. Or why per-capita GDP isn't generally a more meaningful measure than absolute GDP.

[wj]

I'm not sure how you otherwise compare national economies when the nations being compared differ in population.

Actually, I was (If memory serves) thinking of comparisons over time of the economy in the same country. For example, if the US GDP increases 10%, while the population increases by 12%, is that really growth? Or if Japan's GDP decreases by 5% while the population decreases by 7%, have they really lost anything of significance?

[hairshirthedonist]

That, too!

[hairshirthedonist]

I mean also, too! Sorry.

[Barry]

"there are effectively no known cases where long-term economic growth takes place against the backdrop of a shrinking population."

Historically, what has caused a shrinking population? Off of the top of my head, the root cause would be economic (subsistence) difficulties.

[wj]

Well that and war coming thru and trashing both the population and the economic infrastructure.