Soxbadger

I dont think you are looking for Payne to carry an offense. But if the Bulls believe they are going to get Melo or someone who can score, having a guy like Payne to back up Taj and generally give good defensive minutes isnt the worst thing you can have on your team. I just think at worst your getting a guy who can contribute in the first year.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) You don't want McDermott or Stauskas but want two small guards? We're on opposite wave lengths. I would be very upset if the a bulls drafted Ennis. Would definitely take Payne, Lavine, or Anderson at 19. Ennis is great security against an issue with Rose. He has a low turnover rate and is a good distributor. And i dont want 2 small guards, I want 1 pure PG.

I cant comprehend why in the world you would want to move up for McDermott or Stauskas when they are going to be as good (if not better) options available at the Bulls 2 picks. Id take 1 of Ennis/Napier then your choice of Lavine/Anderson/Payne/Hood. Dont really like trading up unless its for a top 5. where your worst case scenario is Randall/Embiid/Exum

Lucas selects Chicago for the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum.

Oh and I dont believe that in the next 10 years we will have anything close to the legal immigration I am talking about. That being said, its always better to argue for the most extreme position and then settle on a middle position. Thus I hope by convincing people to even entertain the idea of the most extreme position, they will be more amenable to the smaller changes that will bring society closer to my position.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:42 PM) I don't think you are looking at it the right way. You are assuming that all of the immigrants will come here idealistic and righteous and be productive members of society. They aren't criminals because they are immigrants. However, because they are poor and will live in high crime areas, they will place more of a burden on the system and thus will contribute to the problem. They will be some that become desparate enough to turn to crime but hopefully not many. But I think you can agree that if you innundate the already high crime rate areas with even more poor people, crime will increase. You cannot equate the turn of the century US with the growing economy with the US of today. The economic condition isn't the same unrestricted poor workers will add to great of a burden on the government without much benefit, as someone said because they will not be paying taxes. Migrant workers are needed for the economy but to restrcit the number who stay here permanaetly would be the best of both worlds. We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. I am a free market capitalist, I ultimately believe that the freer the society is, the more prosperous it will become. You can google hundreds (if not thousands) of free market thinkers who come to similar conclusions. For example, many would argue the reason the US is not growing like it did at the turn of the 20th century was because of the restraint on immigration. I have no problem if you do not subscribe to free market ideas. Its just like arguing whether sausage or cheese pizza is better, it comes down to taste.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:31 PM) This is not a good answer. That's like saying the best way to end murder is to legalize murder. Just because you agree it's a good idea doesn't mean it's the best way to solve the problem. You can legalize it, but monitor it much more effectively. Maybe have non-US citizens check in and prove they are still working the way our student visa students need to do. Not a full time student, back you go. Not a working immigrant, off you go. Either way if it's unrestricted there will be just too much strain on the civil services (police, fire etc.) and the medical system in the US which is already over loaded. I'm not going to bring someone here and not take care of them That isnt a good correlation. You dont end murder by making it legal. There would still be murders, it just wouldnt be a crime. And I never said there cant be rules once they get here. I have no problem making their stay contingent on rules. Just because you get a chance to be here, doesnt mean it has to be carte blanche. Also we just have a fundamental difference on economic policy, I believe more immigrants will increase the amount of money the US govt will have to spend on civil services, so it at worst would be a push, but likely would result in the US having more money for civil services. There is plenty of literature on this topic, I am not the one who invented it, that would be Adam Smith.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:17 PM) You are mistaking a policy position with an answer to a question. You have no answer, because there is no answer - we don't know if it will or will not work without having tried it. You cannot know that, nor can I, with any assuredness. You have to do both to succeed. Simply making legal immigration easier won't stop some people, unless you make it SO easy that EVERYONE comes in like they do now and then some, and you now have huge economic problems as a result. That would reduce deaths on the border and reduce some immigration system costs (while increasing others), but your end result is untenable. You are right no person in the world can predict the future. But you can look at history and try and make the best guess. Illegal immigration (in my opinion) is historically a losing cause unless you want to be a country like NK where you control the border on both sides. As for the economic part, you cannot know it will hurt or help the economy. Many economic theorists agree with me, that more immigrants = better stronger American economy. So we dont know if it will work, unless we try it? Is that not the same argument you made to me. QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:18 PM) I can see the first point. If it's easier for the parents, they would come as well. for the second point, it really doesn't matter why the crime rate is higher. Where they mass together there will be a high crime rate and thus put more of a strain on the government supported system. If it just the area because they are poor then there will just be more poor people in the high crime rate area thus more crimes. Also, in today's society with the politicians complaining about the lack of a middle class, can you imagine the outcry when we add millions more poor people to the country? I dont care about people crying if its not right. I dont care how many southerners cried against ending slavery, I dont care how many men cried about giving woman the right to vote. When something is the best, you have to stand by it regardless of what others may say. Statistically there is no evidence that immigrants = more crime. Its a circular argument, because if that argument was valid, my family would never have been allowed to come here (much like many of yours) because at one time in history our family was "the criminal immigrants" who are going to bring crime to the US. Dont you see why that is flawed? Youre family werent criminals just because they were immigrants, just like todays immigrants arent criminals merely because they are immigrants. People are people. Some are good, some are bad. In the end you hope that when you are good to people, they will do the right thing. Maybe they wont, but Id rather give someone the chance. Because I cant predict who is a criminal or not, and I dont believe that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than non-immigrants. I do believe that the police and prosecutor are more likely to arrest and convict an immigrant, but that is the same for any person who is not privileged. But that is a problem for another day.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 04:09 PM) So if we can't stop 100% we should stop nobody? A 'risk' is acceptable. A sieve that catches almost no one is not. No we can stop people, the same way we did it in Ellis Island. Criminals and people with severe illness would not be allowed to enter.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Sure. This is not a combat operation. National Guard units are deployed for border protection in some cases anyway, and other domestic needs. What cannot be done is using the military against US citizens, which these folks are not. So, how does this answer the question? It shows how we've failed before, doing different things. That means it cannot be done? I'm not following your logic here. The reason you arent following my logic is because you dont want to accept that the best policy is to make legal immigration as easy as possible. You are asking me to discount my position "the best way to end illegal immigration is to make all immigration legal." The only way you can stop illegal immigration is to also prevent US citizens from leaving. If you have a completely closed border, you will have the best chance of stopping illegal immigration. As soon as you let people in and out, you have a risk of illegal immigration. I can come up with countless "gimmicks" to curtail immigration, at best it will marginally slow it down, at worst it will spend govt money with little to no result. Which is why the best answer to end illegal immigration is "make legal immigration easier." 2 birds, 1 stone.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 02:56 PM) The conversation should always revolve around cutting off the incentives for illegal immigration to the US. Solve the root problem, and the rest falls into place. As long as the US is (imo) the best and freest nation this will never ever happen. No where else presents a similar opportunity, unless we destroy the US. And quite frankly, I dont want to live in that world.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 02:56 PM) What makes you think the bolded is true? The fact that is true. There is no way to stop it as long as you have an open border for your citizens. Just for the sake of argument Ill use these charts (I have no idea if they are true) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkbl...the-rise-again/ Even at the height of enforcement 1995-2000, illegal immigration went up exponentially. The only thing that really impacted immigration was the US financial crisis, because illegal immigration went down the years when enforcement went down. And those are just pew numbers, some believe that it still was going up at a similar percent. The reason why more border enforcement wont do anything, is because people who are desperate are more willing to take risks/sacrifice than those who are not. Its simple survival.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) Not sure that's really a fair way to look at it when they're not being told to keep people out, they're being told to look the other way. Nevertheless, border security has always been half-assed anyway. Can't really expect to control the border if you don't control the whole border. Really nothing you can do effectively to keep people out, unless you go to such extreme measures that its impossible for any of us to leave as well. Unless we starting executing people, the reward will always be greater than the risk.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 01:31 PM) None of these still answer the problem of the under 14 year old group that started the conversation. These will not be part of your scenario. The economy needs the migrant workers for the farms and factories for the lower wages that most Americans wouldn't live on. There's no doubt about it. However, it goes back to the same discussion about the "foundation" of immigration you've spoken about. It's sounds like you've read and understand the history of immigration in the US in the late 1800's and early 1900's. If so, you know about what a crime ridden areas were where immigrants gathered together to live. It dramatically increased crime rates, murder was so rampant that pauper graves were made on public islands because the government couldn't find enough room for them. We've made alot of strides in the standard of living since then and if you open the borders again with no control history shows that crimes will dramatically increase in areas where immigrants gathers. Ptatc, The presumption is that a family wouldnt send their child alone to the US if they could also come with the child. There is no way to guarantee it, but that would be the hope. As for crimes are where immigrants gather, I believe that is because immigrants are generally poorer and therefore they are likely to be in places where crime rates are already high. Research from back then is inconclusive because there are a tremendous number of factors that go into whether someone is prosecuted or not: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831353/

Im guessing the plan is you bite someone, they react, you dive and hope for a PK?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 12:13 PM) I supposed that means you are also in favor of the abolitionism of 40 hour work weeks, overtime, social security, mandatory unemployment, mandatory health care, safety standards, pollution standards, taxes, minimum wage and any other of those anti-capitalistic things? Some of those things have nothing to do with capitalism. Ill comment on those that do. 40 hours a week, your choice, your life. Overtime, employer decision. Safety standards, thats why we have lawyers for negligence. Pollution standards, same as before, you pollute, expect to get sued for damages. Minimum wage, you should have the right to work at any price you want. Taxes of course are part of capitalism, they are thoroughly discussed in Wealth of Nations.

It really doesnt matter, this argument is about opinion. Either you believe in free market capitalism or you dont. If you do believe then you have to concede immigration restriction is bad.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 12:06 PM) Immigration is great to fill needs. We should have a policy that matches employment needs with immigrants. We don't have an employment problem in general with a U6 of over 12%. I am very opposed to an immigration policy that results in native workers losing jobs to immigrants. That does not help the country as a whole. You have a right to believe what you want, you just have to recognize that your belief is not supported by the majority of economists. And some native citizens will lose their jobs to harder working cheaper labor, that is the nature of capitalism. If you are not a fan of that, perhaps socialism, communism or some other form of economics would be more to your liking.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 11:50 AM) Half my family was already here, descending from Sioux and Blackfoot tribes, although by the time you get to my grandfather, they were just Appalachion rednecks. Of the other half, one came here LEGALLY from Germany and joined the Navy. The last quarter, we are not sure on, so can't speak to that. And how is trying to maintain America being an oppressor? Seriously, why can't America defend its borders? Well if your family is Native American, then I apologize. They can legitimately argue against any immigration policy. As for the rest of your family, the entire point is back then, it was easier to immigrate. All I am saying is that we should return to the previous rules about immigration. America can do what it wants. If the majority of people believe that a closed border is what should be done, then in America, it can happen. That isnt the point though. The point is why a closed border will ultimately ruin America. You dont have to believe me, but you can go read a lot of information about it and see why more immigrants= better economy. Its one thing that most agree. You can find forbes articles ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/201...alize-all-work/ ) you can find cato articles (linked above), you can find it in time citing brookings institute ( http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-ec...-loses-and-why/ ) “The most recent academic research suggests that, on average, immigrants raise the overall standard of living of American workers by boosting wages and lowering prices.” But here is the great part about America, it doesnt matter what the facts are. You are entitled to your opinion. Maybe one day I will convince people, maybe one day someone more clever than myself will convince people, but eventually they will be convinced. I just hope that it is in my lifetime.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 11:22 AM) You really think they would ever be denied benefits? Never happen. This current crop of non-producers is just here for Uncle Sugar and to act as an anchor to bring over their extended families. We can't find them to send the kids back, but once the kids are let in, I am sure they will somehow manage to find each other. This is what they said about your family when they came to the US. Its the exact same argument. Its always saddening to see those who were once the oppressed turn into the oppressor. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) I think you are missing out that there isn't really any excess labor for them to do, as there was historically. Also worth noting is that historically immigration could push wages down, where it has an artificial floor today, not to mention what the tax code, and benefits system looks like today. A historical comp just fails today because there is very little in our modern economy that is in common with the good ol days. You may not be able to compare historically, but most economists agree that generally speaking increased immigration is good for an economy. You can read Cato or any number of think tanks which almost all come to the same conclusion (which is no different than Adam Smith), artificially controlling labor is bad and hurts the economy. And there is plenty of jobs available, just many Americans dont want to work them. Which is the exact reason why we need immigrant labor to fill that niche. If there were no jobs, they wouldnt be coming here. Its really just that simple.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 10:19 AM) You can't compare the two situations. The country is entirely different and operates in an entirely different way. If our attitude was, come here and don't cause trouble and fend for yourself, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not 2014 America and you know it. Change has to start somewhere. Once our immigration flow increased it should rapidly improve our economy, at that point we would be able to reassess our priorities. That being said, I would have no issue with compromise in terms of immigrant benefits. It would not be that hard to either make them pay an increased tax immediately or have them pay higher taxes later to entitle them to immediate benefits. But those issues can be solved. Because once they are legal immigrants, we have their social, we have records, we can keep track and we can either approve/deny benefits. Its not offering a blank check, but its providing them an opportunity. There will be some who screw it up, but history has shown the majority will become valuable to America. That is how we got there today, that is who we ware.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) I'm not sure anyone is saying this ... I know I'm not. What I am saying is along the lines of what ptact is saying, feel free to come here and contribute, it makes things better for everyone. I have a few friends that did just that. They got green cards, passed the citizenship exam after YEARS and are now both American citizens...they did it the right way, which wasn't the easiest way or cheapest way, but they did it, and are now taxpaying contributors. I'd bet nobody here has an issue with this. But that's not really what we're talking about, and you know it. Your friends shouldnt have had to go through that. We shouldnt have a berserk green card system. We shouldnt restrict our country to those who can "afford" it. Freedom is about giving people a chance.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 10:00 AM) Fine, then see above. Make it a yearly penalty. You should not be able to sneak into this country, abuse its services and then be provided temporary status (no matter how long it takes) without SOME kind of penalty. Sure you can, if the original law is unjust, further enforcement is equally unjust. /shrugs Its just being vindictive. http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis...and_history.asp Everyone should get the same chance that my family did to come into the US. We should not continue the terrible laws that were created in the 20's: And so the cycle continues. Remember, we were all once the people that other people did not want in the US, and the only reason any of us had the chance to come here is because of the kindness of others in this country already. I will not forget that no matter what.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 09:53 AM) Not enough. I want back taxes owed and not paid. Drop in the bucket. What about forcing corps/etc to pay back taxes owed first, then lets worry about taxes on people who likely would have had to pay 0 because their income was to low. I get the protectionism, just come out and say it. You are afraid that if we let other people in, you may not be able to compete. That is fine, but not all of us are scurred. If someone from another country can come to to the US with nothing and take my job, I will tip my cap to them. We used to invite competition, now we try and stifle it. There is no economic basis in the ideology it is just fear mongering. Eventually if we continue down the path of protectionism and counter-free market principles our economy will falter. Simply put, I want the strongest America possible and that means allowing competition.

lol Right, instead of arguing legitimately, lets just say "if you wont donate every ounce of your time to a cause" its not worth it. Its sad that this type of inane comment is applauded. Your money? Its OUR money. Never forget that. The US govt spends money on stupid s*** I dont agree with every day, I dont say "if you believe that we should stop immigration you only get a say if you are in border patrol" or if you want to invade iraq I dont say "you cant say anything unless you join the army." But thanks for that insight, really ground breaking. Look I get it. It seems better if we put up a fence and keep the undesirables out. But giving your position all of the benefits, it is at best a push economically. And im not denying people the opportunity to have freedom and everything I believe in over a push.