Refuting Ombugge's left wing rhetoric


#21

I wish you were right…if you were right, we wouldn’t now have a president who won with chants of “build that wall”. And yeah, here the future IS pretty certain…in the worst case, they’ll go on various government funded…or shall I say…TAXPAYER funded welfare programs which will definitely pay them more than the $1,374 per year they’d earn in Myanmar (per capita GDP).


#22

in the worst case, they’ll go on various government funded…or shall I say…TAXPAYER funded welfare programs which will definitely pay them more than the $1,374 per year they’d earn in Myanmar (per capita GDP).
Please produce the FACTS that support your statement and where these facts can be verified.
Thank you


#23

Which they will then pour back into their new local economies. It’s not like they get to keep their Myanmar cost of living after they immigrate to the US.


#24

Please produce the FACTS that support your statement and where these facts can be verified. Particularly interested in how illegal immigrants get any taxpayer supported subsidy legally. Share your knowledge of how this works.
Thank you


#25

I believe this to be correct. No trolling…this time.


#26

What are you talking about? The scenario we were discussing was him saying people from Myanmar (and places like it) wouldn’t come to the US if given the chance. I called bullshit and asked if he was trolling because I believe of course they would. He changed his tune to be ‘well, they wouldn’t WANT to come’. Then I said if they did come, even in the WORST case scenario, they’d be eligible for welfare if they couldn’t support themselves. There was never any mention about illegal immigrants receiving welfare.

But, since you asked…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/03/la-made-1-3b-in-illegal-immigrant-welfare-payouts-in-just-2-years.html

You believe what to be correct? That a US State Dept. tent in Myanmar offering free legal status in the US would have no takers? Because that’s what that post was.


#27

I thought about this a little more since you brought it up…you can’t POSSIBLY think that the cost of people in this country illegally is net zero or better right? Based on your immediate knee jerk reaction to defend those here illegally, I’ll assume that you will not trust the fox news link I gave, but perhaps YOU can provide some evidence that shows illegal immigrants are not a net LOSS to the American taxpayer. I googled ‘illegal immigrant costs to the US taxpayer’ and there’s plenty of choices there to choose from.


#28

OK. Please supply everyone with the details how illegal immigrants can get welfare legally, and if they do collect illegally that is a law enforcement problems.
Here’s something from a rational source.
Immigrants come here to get “welfare”[edit]
Immigrants come to work and to reunite with family members.[8]
Immigrant labor-force participation is consistently higher than native-born, and immigrant workers make up a larger share of the U.S. labor force (12.4%) than they do the U.S. population (11.5%). Moreover, the ratio between immigrant use of public benefits and the amount of taxes they pay is consistently favorable to the U.S., unless the “study” was undertaken by an anti-immigrant group. One study estimates that immigrants earn nearly $240 billion a year. Studies find that immigrant tax payments total $20 to $85 billion more than the amount of government services they use.[9]
Since the welfare reform of 1996, when limits were implemented cutting off benefits to two years consecutively or five years cumulatively, this is a bogus accusation.
To immigrate into the US, you must have a sponsor (generally the family member, such as the spouse, bringing you into the country) who will testify, and provide proof, that he or she has enough money to support you, if you are unable to support yourself, or if you lose your job. This agreement means that until you naturalize as a U.S. citizen or have been a taxpayer for 10 years, your sponsor’s income will be taken into consideration in deciding whether you are poor enough to qualify for means-tested benefits, and that if you do take those benefits, the government can sue your sponsor to recover those costs. You can also sue your sponsor if they fail to support you at the poverty level.
By the way the mere fact that you are comparing the potential immigrant from Myanmar having to decide which is better? Myanmar or the USA says a lot.
It would be easy to stop illegal immigration if you insisted your neighbors and business owners were imprisoned for employing them. But for some reason in some people’s mind it’s the poor ass immigrant that is at fault not the greedy asshole employing them.
What concerns me more is the LEGAL temporary immigrants taking US jobs. Example, Disney IT operations, Con Ed IT department, Apple, Microsoft, Chouest shipyards, Trump hotels, golf courses, resorts etc.and soon your job as a mariner. They come for low wages, compared to US citizens, no insurance etc.There are already Filipinos taking jobs from US mariners in US waters on vessels owned by US corporations.


#29

I’m no expert on travel vetting, but apparently yes. The US relies on other countries to manage and keep criminal records on their citzens and vet them, or pre-vet them. Of course the US travel vetting mostly relies upon reviewing those foreign records and maybe interviewing the applicant with a few stupid questions.

Until the past few years, most of the concern was vetting people from poor countries to determine whether they would return home before the expiration of there visas. The US has at least 8 million illegal immigrants (about the same as the population of Norway) who have overstayed their visas. Visa overstays are the largest source of illegal immigrants.

Now terrorism is the big concern. It’s a very real problem. Although 90 percent of what Homeland Security does is an ineffective waste of money, it must attempt to intercept terrorism. People from places with little functioning government and no criminal records, like Somalia, need to be banned from the US because there is no way to vet them, and the US does not benefit from their visits.

Drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficiing, and money laundering are also major problems, so there is vetting for this.

Speaking of drugs, American mariners are tested for drug use every time they do a CoC tranaction, again with pre-employment screening before every new job, and must be in commercial drug monitoring programs with random testing. So are airline pilots. So are commercial vehicle drivers. Additionally, employers often do extra drug screening. This is a lot of vetting, there are records. Foreign Immigration authorities can get these records from the US as part of their visa review process. Or foreign immigration authorities can simply rest assured tha American mariners are well vetted.

As far as I know, the US is the only country that drug tests mariners.

I doubt that most countries do effective criminal background and security checks on their mariners. ThIs, along with economic illegal immigration, is why the US must vet foreign mariners before allowing the ashore.

I disagree with a lot of what the US government does. It tends to overdo things, but still manage to do them badly. We have far too much “big brother”. We need smaller, less intrusive, and less expensive government, but the government only grows bigger.


#30

Referring to my earlier statement about our esteemed Norwegian. That’s all. Had nothing to do with Burma.


#31

Actually this has happened several times.

The immigration policy of the USA has been fairly open until recent times.

This has allowed many nationalities to emigrate to the US and set up their communities.

Some integrate, some colonize.

Because peoples from these nations have extended families with tribal and clan affiliations they then immediately make an unformalized, unrecognized (by the US authorities) support group for their fellow countrymen.

A company I worked for lost an entire crew in Miami.

They disappeared into the central states.

Many of them worked as non union labour whilst being homed by their compatriots.

Some set up home and settled within their communities.

Here is the kicker.

Any vessel, or rather the company’s P & I, has to post bond on every deserter. This is held in escrow till the deserter is found.

Knowing this, the smarter ones built a nest egg that would set them up back home.

They then walked into the sherrif’s office declaring the date and ships name at the point of desertion.

They get held on bail, the P & I release the bond and they get flown home.


#32

You are not the only country. We have yearly drug test on a unspecified time.


#33

You asked Im1883 if he was trolling, he answered.


#34

How can illegal children attend public school and university? That’s what “sanctuary cities” are, they house and provide government services for illegals.

A number of years ago California tried to make it Illegal to vote of you weren’t a citizen and it failed. Let that process for a bit…


#35

No, I felt lm1883 was implying that bugge was trolling and I was asking bugge if he would admit he was just trolling. If my wording didn’t make that clear, my apologies…that’s why I was confused with what lm1883 replied.


#36

Never said they could…not sure why you keep asking me to defend a point I didn’t make.

Bullshit…the ‘it’s not the criminal’s fault, it’s the police who haven’t caught them’s fault’ argument is just bullshit

Rational to you…yet still unidentified…the fox news story I linked earlier reported that its data was from the Dept. of Public Social Services. All the data you cite sounds like it is including both legal and illegal immigrants…of course those who are here on an H1-B visa are going to be at or near 100% fully employed…that skews the data for illegals…and how the hell can you get accurate data about illegal immigrants anyway??

Of COURSE the choice is obvious…Ombugge was implying that not many people from Myanmar would come to the US if they had the chance…did you even read this thread??

Ok, common ground…I agree with ALL this whole-heartedly. I actually have no hard feelings for the immigrants OR the businesses. Immigrants want a better life (don’t we all), and business have to do it because if they don’t, their competitor will. My complete and utter DISDAIN is with our elected officials that are acting in the best interests of their donors and not the American people.

Can you elaborate on this? Is this in violation of the Jones Act and no one is enforcing it or are these jobs not required to be filled by US mariners?


#37

IMO regulations re: drug & alcohol: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/humanelement/trainingcertification/pages/drugandalcoholabuse.aspx

Here is a summary of the requirements: http://www.marineinsight.com/maritime-law/what-exactly-is-mentioned-in-the-drug-alcohol-policy-of-ships/

For the Offshore industry, both IMCA’s CMID and OCIMF’s OVID standard forms are widely used for Vessel Inspections. Both contain questions about; Last random Drug test and how alcohol testing is conducted on board.

So no, US isn’t unique in doing testing. In fact many countries and companies require annual tests for everybody working offshore, before they are permitted to board a helicopter or crew boat.


#38

It’s already illegal and that’s another thing sanctuary cities don’t enforce.


#39

At the time when the rest of the world was struggling due to wars, or the aftermaths of wars and from lack of good government, getting to America, Australia, Argentina, Canada or New Zealand was a dream for many and within reach for seafarers, many of whom took the opportunity. Some stayed and some eventually returned home. A lot of those who now regards themselves as “true blue Americans” are probably descendants of seafarers that jumped ship and eventually settled in America.

It is true that there are still a lot of people who sees America as “the land of opportunities”, but it is a statistical fact that the majority of the earth’s 7.5 Bn. people are born, live and die within a single country, many within the same narrow area. The majority never travel to a foreign country, either from lack of opportunities, or because they have no desire to do so.

Isn’t it a fact that over 50% of Americans have never held a passport and never been abroad?: http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/

Would you get some takers if you offered free visa to any comer in Myanmar? Yes of course you would, but only the well healed and educated would likely have a passport to chop it into and the money to travel. The 90% that was talked about is farmers and workers that has no time for anything but making a living where they are. The same would apply to any 3rd world country.

Does every European want to live and work in the US? No, far from it. Why would they? The aftermath of WWII and the days when the standard of living in the US was much higher then in Europe is long gone.

Are there SOME Europeans that still would like to live in the US? Yes, as there are Americans who live and work in Europe, or just about everywhere in the world. If the US tax system was changed there probably would have been av lot more Americans abroad.


#40

I wouldn’t say he trolling as much as looking for engagement. A worldly man like that surely doesn’t take such a narrow view of any nation or nationality, wether it be the US or Myanmar. As far as our industry and how we do things here he is ambivalent but learning. He is on the opposite side of the globalist coin looking to internationalization even as it is putting his own countrymen out of work.

I do find it interesting that he kicks us in the nuts over our subsidization of our marine sector but seems to support it when it comes to the employ of Norwegian seafarers.