Minimum wage doesn't cover the rent anywhere in the U.S.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-doesnt-cover-the-rent-anywhere-in-the-u-s/?fbclid=IwAR3FAjKgpanwjIFsPuCFrfLzOMKf2oWLcW2UxH-FSNCJfQ8YuROjGOk_F1c A minimum-wage worker would have to put in lots of overtime to be able to afford a modest, two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country. And downsizing to a one-bedroom pad barely helps. Even with some states hiking pay for those earning the least, there is still nowhere in the country where a person working a full-time minimum wage job can afford to rent a decent two-bedroom apartment, according to an annual report released Wednesday by the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Even the $15 hourly wage touted by labor activists would not be enough to make housing affordable in the overwhelming majority of states, the coalition found. Nationally, someone would need to make $17.90 an hour to rent a modest one-bedroom or $22.10 an hour to cover a two-bedroom
Why would a person in minimum wage need a two bedroom apartment? I would also question, can two people working at minimum wage afford a two bedroom apartment?
Renting a room in a house, while not luxurious as having one’s own place, is affordable with minimum wage. It also cuts other bills out of the equation such as heat/hydro and if the landlord is nice enough internet.
I would bet everything I own on the liklihood that this decision caused multiple children to be sexually assaulted. Inexcusable. They personally signed off on side-stepping abuse and neglect checks.
Even the $15 hourly wage touted by labor activists would not be enough to make housing affordable in the overwhelming majority of states, the coalition found. Nationally, someone would need to make $17.90 an hour to rent a modest one-bedroom or $22.10 an hour to cover a two-bedroom place.
This is why you are not supposed to *want* minimum wage for any longer than necessary. Ideally, people should aspire to more than the minimum, unless they truly have that low of an opinion of their self-worth.
AOC is still being short-sighted. Sending case workers to the border treats only the symptom rather than the disease. The problems of violence and corruption in Guatemala and Honduras need to be solved, not dealing with people fleeing those conditions.
@Mathsorcerer It has nothing to do with *wanting* minimum wage. Its all that is possible for many many people nation wide. The cost of an education is prohibitively expensive, so you already can't afford it unless you were lucky enough to come from a wealthy family. Many businesses no longer even hire full time anymore. Even if you are spectacularly lucky enough to get a college degree, that means less and less each year. With the unemployemnt rate for college graduates rising every few years. Minumum wage is a trap that the employment and education climate makes practically impossible to crawl out of without outside help.
Frankly, I'm not nearly as worried about the minimum wage as the US hyper-captalist culture that gives deference to business owners to treat their employees like the underworld workers in "Metropolis". This country worships business owners, and views workers as little more than Soylent Green.
If minimum wage workers could just choose to be paid higher wages, then minimum wage workers wouldn't exist. 1.3 million American workers make exactly minimum wage, while another 1.7 million make even less than that. Half of the former is below 25--people do proceed from minimum wage to higher wages, but that process takes time, and not everyone makes it.
It would be great if more people made higher wages. But they don't, and that's the reality that we're dealing with. Hypothetical possibilities are not a solid basis for making judgments. We have to work with the reality we have, not the reality that would be nice if it were real.
Some people will always be the weakest earners, unless literally everyone gets paid the same.
True, but somebody should be a "weak earner" because they don't work as hard or some other choice of theirs, not because the system already makes it impossible to improve yourself.
What I don't understand about the left is how they complain about wages but support unchecked immigration. Has it never occurred to them that supply and demand works for labor value as well; if you are one out of a hundred with your skillset, your wages will be much higher than if you are one in a million with your skill set. They have supported policies that for decades has shifted wealth from the employee to the employer, like NAFTA and the TPP, yet complain that the overall standard of living for most people has been in a long slow decline and wage gains have been going to the top. Well gee, I wonder if this worker replacement policy and these one sided trade deals, which have given employers more power than ever before and workers next to none, has anything to do with it.
And don't even get me started about union rights. The left stabbed their own unions in the back by allowing their own workforce to become easier to replace than ever before, ensuring no hope of ever unionizing. This applies to general labor and to specialized labor. H1B visas are a perfect example of the kind of assault on American workers wages that our immigration policy represents. Your employer can replace you at any time and save money while doing it, even if you spent years of effort to learn a skill not many in your country have. Of course you won't take the risk to unionize. This state of affairs is aided by those who claim to represent unions.
You can't just enforce good economic outcomes by government law while ignoring the economic impacts of your policies. That is wishful thinking.
There are two people in American public life that in my opinion speak economic sense; Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Both in different areas, and both for different reasons.
As far as post-secondary education costs are concerned...that is what community colleges are for. If neither you nor your family have a lot of money then you may still go that route. I just looked up the tuition rates for the local community college here--$59 per credit hour, in-county tuition rate. Naturally, that doesn't cover other associated fees or books, but the base rate for a full-time student (which is still 12 hours) is $708 for a semester. Yes, that is still a lot of money for many people, but there are many grant and scholarship programs which exist to cover that cost without burdening you with long-term student debt.
What I don't understand about the left is how they complain about wages but support unchecked immigration. Has it never occurred to them that supply and demand works for labor value as well; if you are one out of a hundred with your skillset, your wages will be much higher than if you are one in a million with your skill set.
I agree with the notion that high illegal immigration depresses wages, which I've said before is a valid grounds for opposing immigration. It's actually part of the main reason I disagree with the typical Democratic stance on immigration.
However, it's factually untrue that the left "supports unchecked immigration." This is a conservative strawman; not the position of the left. Not a single liberal in this thread has advocated for removing immigration restrictions (if you're skeptical, you can double-check), and it's worth pointing out that Obama himself deported a record high number of immigrants, and that immigration dropped during his presidency. Most of the latter should be blamed on the recession first and foremost, but the reality is that the Democratic party controlled House, Senate, and White House in the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, and yet full Democratic control of the federal government resulted in no open borders.
If you look at what Democrats themselves have said about immigration, it's mostly just opposition to specific policies by Republican politicians: we oppose detention without due process of law; we oppose spending billions on a border law; we oppose mass deportations (not all of us agree with Obama's high deportation count); we oppose removing birthright citizenship; we oppose the demonization of immigrants as violent criminals, gang members, and terrorists. While there are always exceptions, those are the positions of the left, as espoused by the left itself.
I don't get my opinions about conservative politics from liberal criticisms of conservative politics. I get it from conservatives themselves, and I think that's how we should do things. If you want to know what someone believes, you need to listen to them; not people who think they're crazy, and therefore have every reason to misinterpret or misrepresent their views.
Otherwise we end up with a situation like this: Also, I fail to see how the Democratic party has weakened unions. The Republican party has weakened union protections, largely starting during the Reagan era. It wasn't long ago that we ourselves were discussing a Republican attempt to make union dues non-mandatory in order to starve unions of funds, while Democrats opposed that effort in order to keep unions strong.
This article hit less than an hour ago. Illegal immigration has been at a net negative for YEARS. More people are heading the other direction. The hysteria about immigration is at a fever pitch when the problem itself is less serious than it has been in a over a decade. Again, more people are leaving than are coming in. It has been an ongoing trend:
However, it's factually untrue that the left "supports unchecked immigration." This is a conservative strawman; not the position of the left. Not a single liberal in this thread has advocated for removing immigration restrictions (if you're skeptical, you can double-check), and it's worth pointing out that Obama himself deported a record high number of immigrants, and that immigration dropped during his presidency. Most of the latter should be blamed on the recession first and foremost, but the reality is that the Democratic party controlled House, Senate, and White House in the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, and yet full Democratic control of the federal government resulted in no open borders.
The handful of folks in this thread don't represent the democratic party as a whole, though I acknowledge and respect the differences in opinion.
Sanctuary cities are almost exclusively left wing, open borders was the position of the candidate the democrats voted most for in 2016, almost all opinion polls show those with left leaning inclinations desire looser immigration laws more than those who are right leaning, frankly, by what metric do they *not* support it? Can you tell me one immigration restricting law that democrat politicians support? We are talking politics, not the individuals here.
This is not to discount Republicans complicity in the matter, also favoring the interests of business over people.
Also high levels of legal immigration designed to replace skilled workers in entire industries still damages wages and employment of American workers. It's still the same net effect just to a slightly lesser extent: economic benefits do exist, and those largely benefit employers who pay lower wages and those who are harmed are the workers themselves. As this study shows, lower wages led to higher company profits which was, allegedly, good for the nation. As long as you describe the nation as businesses and their profits and not people and their well being. The exact thing conservatives are constantly accused of.
"In 1990, 11% of U.S. computer scientists were immigrants. By 2001, more than 21% of workers in the sector were foreign-born. The study found that immigration in the computer science sector led to an increase in wages across the broader economy of 0.04% to 0.28%. There was a more pronounced effect for non-college educated workers, whose paychecks saw a 0.43% to 0.52% bump.
The study also concluded that the inclusion of immigrant labor meant prices for computer products were 1.9% to 2.4% lower. The authors concluded that that decrease boosted the adoption of technology by the general public, by making it more affordable.
Without the added foreign labor, the study concluded that domestic employment in the computer science sector would have been between 6.1% and 10.8% higher in 2001. Put simply, for every 100 foreign computer scientists working in the U.S., between 33 and 61 domestic workers were displaced. The influx of foreign workers also held down wages, the authors concluded, with compensation being 2.6% to 5.1% lower than if foreign workers were not allowed.
The lower wages in the sector were not necessarily a bad thing for the overall welfare of the nation, the report concluded. Lower wages allowed for higher company profits, which in turn led to an increase in the number of IT firms that entered the market, thus spurring competition and innovation."
@WarChiefZeke: You said that the left supported "unrestricted immigration," not "looser immigration laws than Republicans support." The former is 100% false; the latter is 100% true.
Put it another way: Republicans support lower taxes than Democrats. That's true. Republicans don't support zero taxes. That's false--a strawman.
When we reduce the other side's views to bizarre extremes, we stop criticizing real policies and start attacking strawmen instead.
@WarChiefZeke: You said that the left supported "unrestricted immigration," not "looser immigration laws than Republicans support." The former is 100% false; the latter is 100% true.
Put it another way: Republicans support lower taxes than Democrats. That's true. Republicans don't support zero taxes. That's false--a strawman.
When we reduce the other side's views to bizarre extremes, we stop criticizing real policies and start attacking strawmen instead.
You're right, that statement was generalizing too much. We should try not to do that, it's not helpful.
I'll amend my statement this way: the position of the democrats contributes to the problem of why real wages never go up and doesn't help.
And Hillary did not support open borders, theres one quote that is pointed to is in reference to economics not people.
During her campaign she never promised to work for open borders for people.
Anyway should people be allowed to apply for asylum? There are quite a few on the right that don't seem to think so. What's your take? As a representative for "the left" I'd say let em apply. Application doesn't guarantee acceptance but if it's deserving them let em in. I'd say schenanigans like causing a panic by unreasonable delays and closing the border don't help the situation.
In order to believe she was talking trade and not people when she said that you have to believe when she said "open trade and open borders" she really meant "open trade and open trade". Context make her statement clear. The intent was clearly economic in the sense that she meant businesses could hire across borders and not worry about it, but that still means people.
@Mathsorcerer The cost of community colleges is relatively better, yes, but to many people, its not any more affordable. Grants and scholarships aren't guaranteed, and student loans (which you didn't mention) can still decide to drop service 2 semesters without warning (happened to me), even then you can easily end up with a lifetime of debt so that you can MAYBE get that job that pasy better than minimum wage and offers full time employment. Good luck with benefits. And again, every alternative you list IS STILL DEPENDANT ON OUTSIDE HELP. There is nothing someone not born to means can do to pull themselves up in our society.
I worked at a call center that serviced student loans for awhile (it was terrible) and I learned a lot from it that helped me later when I went to college. Anyone on an income based repayment plan only pays 10% above the poverty line to their student loan debt and after 20-25 years your student loans go away on the plan. There are no real requirements other than applying. If you go in with a little knowledge under your belt you won't be crippled with student loan debt.
Student loan debt is a problem but it won't kill you. If you're poor, there's no reason you should be paying anything.
In order to believe she was talking trade and not people when she said that you have to believe when she said "open trade and open borders" she really meant "open trade and open trade". Context make her statement clear. The intent was clearly economic in the sense that she meant businesses could hire across borders and not worry about it, but that still means people.
Incidentally, she recently said that Europe should look to curb some of the migration/immigration into their country because it contributes to a rise in the nationalist alt-right parties (like AfD, UKIP). While I disagree with her on the solution, she isnt wrong that conservatives around the world use immigration as their boogy-man to drum up fear of "the other".
Anyways, this is relevant because she **CLEARLY** doesnt want fully open borders, as she literally just advocated against it elsewhere (when she has next to no skin in the game, so no reason to lie or mislead).
Also, conservatives seem to forget that Clinton is a pretty centrist person. She represented the more centrist wing of the party. That wing does not want open borders. She's a neo-liberal, she wants free trade. Not open borders.
In order to believe she was talking trade and not people when she said that you have to believe when she said "open trade and open borders" she really meant "open trade and open trade". Context make her statement clear. The intent was clearly economic in the sense that she meant businesses could hire across borders and not worry about it, but that still means people.
Incidentally, she recently said that Europe should look to curb some of the migration/immigration into their country because it contributes to a rise in the nationalist alt-right parties (like AfD, UKIP). While I disagree with her on the solution, she isnt wrong that conservatives around the world use immigration as their boogy-man to drum up fear of "the other".
Anyways, this is relevant because she **CLEARLY** doesnt want fully open borders, as she literally just advocated against it elsewhere (when she has next to no skin in the game, so no reason to lie or mislead).
Also, conservatives seem to forget that Clinton is a pretty centrist person. She represented the more centrist wing of the party. That wing does not want open borders. She's a neo-liberal, she wants free trade. Not open borders.
Seriously. That comic @semiticgod posted is clutch here. Who knows better Clinton's positions than herself?
Praising Merkel's policy and only opposing further migration on the grounds that it is lessening their own political power isn't a terribly good argument that she isn't in favor of such things. That' clearly a practical analysis based on recent evidence rather than what she ideally wants.
I did heard about that though, and she's right, the recent wave of right wing governments across Europe and the widespread improvement of these parties in elections is directly tied to how terribly they managed immigration by being so lenient and so open with their borders they let rape gangs exist in several major UK cities and several European countries have highly imbalanced crime rates from their non native populations, whether it's Sweden's rape statistics or the rate of non natives and muslims in French prisons or what have you
Frankly, it's ridiculous to attribute the growing nationalist sentiment in Europe to boogeymen and fears of the other rather than legitimate issues which can not be denied.
Well, let's not give too much credence to a comic. I posted that one because I thought it was cute, but I generally don't consider comics or memes to be good methods of argumentation.
Why are we talking about Hillary anyway, she's not in office. Did we get here by whataboutism? What about Hillary's Benghazi borders! or something. Who cares about Hillary.
This is true, although it leaves out that 2018 had 29 cases.
One particularly annoying example of media manipulation is the dishonest framing of bipartisan routine behavior out as some aberrant deviation from the norm with sinister undertones.
I've said it before and I certainly didn't invent the phrase but the biggest lies these activists who call themselves journalists tell are in what they leave out rather than what they outright fabricate.
Why are we talking about Hillary anyway, she's not in office. Did we get here by whataboutism? What about Hillary's Benghazi borders! or something. Who cares about Hillary.
Praising Merkel's policy and only opposing further migration on the grounds that it is lessening their own political power isn't a terribly good argument that she isn't in favor of such things. That' clearly a practical analysis based on recent evidence rather than what she ideally wants.
Wait. That's clear? How? To be honest, it sounds like you're assuming her intent, despite her clearly articulating the opposite of your assumption. You also assumed you knew what she meant by "open borders" in the past, when it seems pretty clear to me she wanted a system like the EU has (Can freely travel from Germany to France).
Frankly, it's ridiculous to attribute the growing nationalist sentiment in Europe to boogeymen and fears of the other rather than legitimate issues which can not be denied. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-45269764
Weird. It's almost like we can google for a story and fit it to the narrative we want. To wit:
Frankly. I think it's ridiculous to cherry pick news articles in an attempt to prove a point. By biasing the information in an argument this way, one is only presenting the part of the picture one wants to see
Why are we talking about Hillary anyway, she's not in office. Did we get here by whataboutism? What about Hillary's Benghazi borders! or something. Who cares about Hillary.
I've never seen anything like the constant coverage of Hillary Clinton after a losing Presidential campaign. John Kerry and Mitt Romney were NEVER given this kind of media attention after they lost. It seems Hillary is supposed to answer for everytime she takes a step outside her house, despite the fact that she holds no national office, hasn't for 6 years, and hasn't been a legitimate player on the political stage in the last two. Yet in many cases, she is STILL covered with more scrutiny than Trump is (I'm looking at you NY Times). For much of 2017, FOX News was covering her as if she WAS the President. The focal point of every Trump rally is still a rabid, frothing chant for her to be jailed for amorphous crimes. I've mentioned it before, but this is the only thing that comes to mind when I discuss this subject:
Why are we talking about Hillary anyway, she's not in office. Did we get here by whataboutism? What about Hillary's Benghazi borders! or something. Who cares about Hillary.
Praising Merkel's policy and only opposing further migration on the grounds that it is lessening their own political power isn't a terribly good argument that she isn't in favor of such things. That' clearly a practical analysis based on recent evidence rather than what she ideally wants.
Wait. That's clear? How? To be honest, it sounds like you're assuming her intent, despite her clearly articulating the opposite of your assumption. You also assumed you knew what she meant by "open borders" in the past, when it seems pretty clear to me she wanted a system like the EU has (Can freely travel from Germany to France).
Listen to what you're saying. Freely traveling and working between America, Mexico, and Canada is open borders. Can't get more open borders than that, really.
If you meant between states, we already have that.
Frankly, it's ridiculous to attribute the growing nationalist sentiment in Europe to boogeymen and fears of the other rather than legitimate issues which can not be denied. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-45269764
Weird. It's almost like we can google for a story and fit it to the narrative we want. To wit:
Frankly. I think it's ridiculous to cherry pick news articles in an attempt to prove a point. By biasing the information in an argument this way, one is only presenting the part of the picture one wants to see
Irrelevant. Not related at all to the statistics I posted, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't arguing that an economic boost is worth the flipside to their policies.
Also, cherry picked implies I didn't provide a consistent pattern across multiple European countries, or that any of what I said is in serious dispute by other sources.
Why are we talking about Hillary anyway, she's not in office. Did we get here by whataboutism? What about Hillary's Benghazi borders! or something. Who cares about Hillary.
The reason why it was brought up is obvious from the context of the thread. The rest are strawmen.
Comments
Renting a room in a house, while not luxurious as having one’s own place, is affordable with minimum wage. It also cuts other bills out of the equation such as heat/hydro and if the landlord is nice enough internet.
I would bet everything I own on the liklihood that this decision caused multiple children to be sexually assaulted. Inexcusable. They personally signed off on side-stepping abuse and neglect checks.
AOC is still being short-sighted. Sending case workers to the border treats only the symptom rather than the disease. The problems of violence and corruption in Guatemala and Honduras need to be solved, not dealing with people fleeing those conditions.
It would be great if more people made higher wages. But they don't, and that's the reality that we're dealing with. Hypothetical possibilities are not a solid basis for making judgments. We have to work with the reality we have, not the reality that would be nice if it were real.
And don't even get me started about union rights. The left stabbed their own unions in the back by allowing their own workforce to become easier to replace than ever before, ensuring no hope of ever unionizing. This applies to general labor and to specialized labor. H1B visas are a perfect example of the kind of assault on American workers wages that our immigration policy represents. Your employer can replace you at any time and save money while doing it, even if you spent years of effort to learn a skill not many in your country have. Of course you won't take the risk to unionize. This state of affairs is aided by those who claim to represent unions.
You can't just enforce good economic outcomes by government law while ignoring the economic impacts of your policies. That is wishful thinking.
There are two people in American public life that in my opinion speak economic sense; Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Both in different areas, and both for different reasons.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216
As far as post-secondary education costs are concerned...that is what community colleges are for. If neither you nor your family have a lot of money then you may still go that route. I just looked up the tuition rates for the local community college here--$59 per credit hour, in-county tuition rate. Naturally, that doesn't cover other associated fees or books, but the base rate for a full-time student (which is still 12 hours) is $708 for a semester. Yes, that is still a lot of money for many people, but there are many grant and scholarship programs which exist to cover that cost without burdening you with long-term student debt.
However, it's factually untrue that the left "supports unchecked immigration." This is a conservative strawman; not the position of the left. Not a single liberal in this thread has advocated for removing immigration restrictions (if you're skeptical, you can double-check), and it's worth pointing out that Obama himself deported a record high number of immigrants, and that immigration dropped during his presidency. Most of the latter should be blamed on the recession first and foremost, but the reality is that the Democratic party controlled House, Senate, and White House in the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, and yet full Democratic control of the federal government resulted in no open borders.
If you look at what Democrats themselves have said about immigration, it's mostly just opposition to specific policies by Republican politicians: we oppose detention without due process of law; we oppose spending billions on a border law; we oppose mass deportations (not all of us agree with Obama's high deportation count); we oppose removing birthright citizenship; we oppose the demonization of immigrants as violent criminals, gang members, and terrorists. While there are always exceptions, those are the positions of the left, as espoused by the left itself.
I don't get my opinions about conservative politics from liberal criticisms of conservative politics. I get it from conservatives themselves, and I think that's how we should do things. If you want to know what someone believes, you need to listen to them; not people who think they're crazy, and therefore have every reason to misinterpret or misrepresent their views.
Otherwise we end up with a situation like this:
Also, I fail to see how the Democratic party has weakened unions. The Republican party has weakened union protections, largely starting during the Reagan era. It wasn't long ago that we ourselves were discussing a Republican attempt to make union dues non-mandatory in order to starve unions of funds, while Democrats opposed that effort in order to keep unions strong.
The handful of folks in this thread don't represent the democratic party as a whole, though I acknowledge and respect the differences in opinion.
Sanctuary cities are almost exclusively left wing, open borders was the position of the candidate the democrats voted most for in 2016, almost all opinion polls show those with left leaning inclinations desire looser immigration laws more than those who are right leaning, frankly, by what metric do they *not* support it? Can you tell me one immigration restricting law that democrat politicians support? We are talking politics, not the individuals here.
This is not to discount Republicans complicity in the matter, also favoring the interests of business over people.
"In 1990, 11% of U.S. computer scientists were immigrants. By 2001, more than 21% of workers in the sector were foreign-born.
The study found that immigration in the computer science sector led to an increase in wages across the broader economy of 0.04% to 0.28%. There was a more pronounced effect for non-college educated workers, whose paychecks saw a 0.43% to 0.52% bump.
The study also concluded that the inclusion of immigrant labor meant prices for computer products were 1.9% to 2.4% lower. The authors concluded that that decrease boosted the adoption of technology by the general public, by making it more affordable.
Without the added foreign labor, the study concluded that domestic employment in the computer science sector would have been between 6.1% and 10.8% higher in 2001. Put simply, for every 100 foreign computer scientists working in the U.S., between 33 and 61 domestic workers were displaced. The influx of foreign workers also held down wages, the authors concluded, with compensation being 2.6% to 5.1% lower than if foreign workers were not allowed.
The lower wages in the sector were not necessarily a bad thing for the overall welfare of the nation, the report concluded. Lower wages allowed for higher company profits, which in turn led to an increase in the number of IT firms that entered the market, thus spurring competition and innovation."
http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/h1-b-silicon-valley-wages/
Put it another way: Republicans support lower taxes than Democrats. That's true. Republicans don't support zero taxes. That's false--a strawman.
When we reduce the other side's views to bizarre extremes, we stop criticizing real policies and start attacking strawmen instead.
I'll amend my statement this way: the position of the democrats contributes to the problem of why real wages never go up and doesn't help.
During her campaign she never promised to work for open borders for people.
Anyway should people be allowed to apply for asylum? There are quite a few on the right that don't seem to think so. What's your take? As a representative for "the left" I'd say let em apply. Application doesn't guarantee acceptance but if it's deserving them let em in. I'd say schenanigans like causing a panic by unreasonable delays and closing the border don't help the situation.
Student loan debt is a problem but it won't kill you. If you're poor, there's no reason you should be paying anything.
Anyways, this is relevant because she **CLEARLY** doesnt want fully open borders, as she literally just advocated against it elsewhere (when she has next to no skin in the game, so no reason to lie or mislead).
Also, conservatives seem to forget that Clinton is a pretty centrist person. She represented the more centrist wing of the party. That wing does not want open borders. She's a neo-liberal, she wants free trade. Not open borders.
Edit: Look at the headline.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/hillary-clinton-calls-reform-not-open-borders-explaining-european-migration-n939576
Seriously. That comic @semiticgod posted is clutch here. Who knows better Clinton's positions than herself?
I did heard about that though, and she's right, the recent wave of right wing governments across Europe and the widespread improvement of these parties in elections is directly tied to how terribly they managed immigration by being so lenient and so open with their borders they let rape gangs exist in several major UK cities and several European countries have highly imbalanced crime rates from their non native populations, whether it's Sweden's rape statistics or the rate of non natives and muslims in French prisons or what have you
Frankly, it's ridiculous to attribute the growing nationalist sentiment in Europe to boogeymen and fears of the other rather than legitimate issues which can not be denied.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-europe-45269764
This is true, although it leaves out that 2018 had 29 cases.
One particularly annoying example of media manipulation is the dishonest framing of bipartisan routine behavior out as some aberrant deviation from the norm with sinister undertones.
I've said it before and I certainly didn't invent the phrase but the biggest lies these activists who call themselves journalists tell are in what they leave out rather than what they outright fabricate.
They play for their team.
Weird. It's almost like we can google for a story and fit it to the narrative we want. To wit:
Immigrants are a good thing in Sweden:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/sweden-s-economy-is-getting-a-lift-from-migrants
Frankly. I think it's ridiculous to cherry pick news articles in an attempt to prove a point. By biasing the information in an argument this way, one is only presenting the part of the picture one wants to see
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod?wprov=sfla1
Listen to what you're saying. Freely traveling and working between America, Mexico, and Canada is open borders. Can't get more open borders than that, really.
If you meant between states, we already have that.
Weird. It's almost like we can google for a story and fit it to the narrative we want. To wit:
Immigrants are a good thing in Sweden:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-21/sweden-s-economy-is-getting-a-lift-from-migrants
Frankly. I think it's ridiculous to cherry pick news articles in an attempt to prove a point. By biasing the information in an argument this way, one is only presenting the part of the picture one wants to see
Irrelevant. Not related at all to the statistics I posted, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't arguing that an economic boost is worth the flipside to their policies.
Also, cherry picked implies I didn't provide a consistent pattern across multiple European countries, or that any of what I said is in serious dispute by other sources.