Busloads of migrants dropped off at Kamala Harris home

Post Reply New Topic

We now have an empty home tax. Some investors rent their places out because of it, others just pay the tax. It helps but isn’t enough.

Another HUGE blow to rental housing is Airbnb and the other short term rental platforms. People have massive mortgage payments to make so being in a desirable place to visit, tons of places are short term vacation rentals which leaves locals scrambling for housing, paying obscenely high rents, or living in cars etc.


A local economist calculated that we built about 20-25% more units of housing than we need to house people. It’s all investors and Airbnb. So no matter how much we build we can’t house people when houses don’t become homes. Developers have cancelled all kinds of builds due to decking prices and profit expectations dropping.

Various levels of government need to get back into building rental housing again. They stopped about 30 years ago and now we’re in this mess.

I think it means it's too low if it still pays off to hoard homes while not renting while paying this tax.
The tax should aim at making this procedure generate losses.

These are acceptable losses to some extremely wealthy people just to have the status symbol of owning a home or mansion in Vancouver that they might visit once a year. For others it's just a cost of doing business to park their money outside of China where it's much more difficult for the CCP to take it. etc.

So-called "economic refugees" are still migrating because they have to. "Economic refugee" is big-word-ese for "move or starve."

In many cases, the reasons might be preventable. More and better foreign aid from a superpower might help the economies of the countries "economic refugees" are fleeing from, thereby reducing the number of people fleeing.

I think this would be, by far, the most humane solution to the current migration crisis.

I also think that if the U.S.A. doesn't step up to the plate in this regard, then, sooner or later, China or Russia (most likely China) will.

Furthermore, whichever superpower does this earns, thereby, the right to have military bases in the country they are helping. So, if the U.S.A. doesn't start doing a better job of helping the economies of Central America, we will have only ourselves to blame if either China or Russia sets up military bases there.

Agreed, but it would still be good to reduce the AMOUNT of need for migration, to make it more manageable.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 28 Dec 2022, 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That may be true of too many politicians and power brokers these days, but what about ordinary voters? Why are the immigration-restrictionist people here on Wrong Planet completely ignoring the question of prevention?

Economic ideology is irrelevant here. My concern here is national security.

Anyhow, China is now Communist in name only, and Russia is no longer Communist even in name.

Says the person who comes from a country whose upper half is covered in permafrost. Sorry if I don't feel your solutions are from real experience, but some kind of think tank.[/quote]
What does permafrost have to do with refugees on the US' Southern doorstep and the jobs Americans refuse to do that still need doing? Only makes sense to put 2 & 2 together and make the best of it instead of partisan political yapping back and forth about it, especially since no one can make it rain and Americans aren't about to give up their drug habits.

I suppose I'll take it as a compliment that you think my thoughts came out of an entire think tank, though. I must be pretty sharp. [/quote]

I believe you missed the point entirely.
It wasn't comparing your thoughts with a "Think Tank", imo.
It sounded to me as though Persephone29 was saying you had misappropriated intellectual property. [/quote]

Goldfish has great ideas for countries whose entire land is habitable and can be put to use agriculturally, because his land will never be overrun. It's not very hospitable to be frozen.

We have a "think tank" in our school, the kids who are in trouble come there to try and figure out solutions to their problems with the help of an adult. In the think tank, things like talking reasonably, asking for what they need (a break) etc... are posed as alternatives to violence. Those things are great!! The problem happens when the same kid gets punched in the mouth at recess. In the face of violence, all those great 'think tank' ideas go straight out the window. Much like Goldfish's brilliant ideas...

What to do with the land set aside for Federal Parks (clean air)? What to do about the land held by ranchers, paid off and owned outright? Maybe they alternate sections for grazing, so the grazing land can recover. Should we use appropriation to meet the needs of a broken immigration system? Some of these ranches are how families have made a living for generations. I bet Goldfish votes for appropriation. He's probably highly resentful of privately owned land, because he's never owned any. Why should anyone have need of anything he's not able to have? Take it away from them and plant crops for the invaders!! !

That's the kind of 'think tank' I was referring to. The ones with way out there ideas that serve one sector while royally screwing all the rest.[/quote]


Why go off on some fantasy nonsense of what you assume I think or feel? That's just nuts, imo.


Canada has a lot of land mass, much of it able to be developed into cities/housing if necessary. The current constraint to housing is building it fast enough.. but that's only because of how much that is built that is sold to investors and never lived in by anyone. But in general, one can drive for hundreds and hundreds of kms between major cities - thousands at times.. and in between there are habitable places that more cities could be constructed. It's not as if every bit of land below the frozen tundra is put to use or anything, farms or otherwise. We only have about 40M people and are one of the largest countries on the planet. We also have towns/cities way up North, too.

My own personal ownership of property has Zero to do with my observations that Canada has a lot of land and a low population and could manage to absorb more immigrants so long as we can build housing for them. I don't own property because it's shot up in value so quickly most people my age and younger can't afford it - just the minimum down payment on a house is multiple times the full mortgaged purchase price my parents generation paid. I don't have the financial means to buy a suburban home for $1.7M dollars because jobs don't pay a 1/4M+ a year. But just because I can't afford to buy a house doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that Canada is a huge country with only 40M people.

It seems to me you've probably been watching far too much tucker carlson for your own good if your rants and raves are about taking away peoples' property to "plant crops for invaders."[/quote]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if your government doesn't want to build more cities?

One of the reasons I'm not more into prevention of migrants is because I do not believe the money (aid) goes where it's supposed to go. I think aid is given, I think the leaders of the countries misappropriate the funds. And I think our government knew they were not going to use it for the citizens when they gave it. I believe that now, nearly every country is corrupt.

I believe the only way that these migrants would get aid is if a mission is set or the people from the UN.

And the migrants just keep coming and it's on the everyday citizens to deal with it, which is why Abbot dropped them off at Kamala's house.

117,000 people are on a government housing waiting list in Duval County, alone. I live in St. Johns county, but work in Duval Co. This is what citizens are dealing with.

To whatever extent this is a problem, surely there are ways around it?

For example: infrastructure projects, approved by both the local country's own government and the U.S. federal government, could be worked on by private nonprofit organizations that receive funding both from U.S. government grants and from private donations, and are periodically audited by both the U.S. government and the local country's own government.

Even such an arrangement would not be 100% corruption-proof, of course. But it would probably be much better than just giving money to a notoriously-corrupt government.

If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. government already does exactly the above, to a limited extent. We just need to do more of it, and perhaps make it better-targeted in terms of what would actually improve the economies of the affected countries.


I don't think we need to bring the U.N. into this. Part of the aim here (besides reducing economic migration) is U.S. national security -- so that we (and NOT China! And NOT Russia!) can have military bases in these countries without being resented, but rather seen as a benefactor. This is critically important in Central America in particular, given the strategic importance of the Panama Canal.


I hear you. But I think it is both inhumane and strategically (militarily!) foolish to try to address this issue by just having a more restrictive immigration policy, rather than by addressing the root causes of the migrations.


We desperately NEED more cities too, by the way, here in the U.S.A. Specifically, we need more walkable cities. We need a bunch of new mini-Manhattans, so that more Americans can avoid being dependent on cars. But that's another topic....

^ those all sound like very good ideas, I have to wonder why they haven't been instituted? With all the money we give away, why haven't they done it? The only thing I can come up with is that they don't want to. And then the next question would be again, why? Is this mass migration orchestrated and if so, to what end?

Quote from above concerning So. America and interests in Panama.:
I believe the only way that these migrants would get aid is if a mission is set or the people from the UN.
Mona Pereth:
I don't think we need to bring the U.N. into this. Part of the aim here (besides reducing economic migration) is U.S. national security -- so that we (and NOT China! And NOT Russia!) can have military bases in these countries without being resented, but rather seen as a benefactor. This is critically important in Central America in particular, given the strategic importance of the Panama Canal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am not meaning to take this quote out of context ,but in the USA , we are not really privey to So. Amercas actual
conditions . We are fed info by media here . That does not reflect the facts contained in the CIA world fact book .
As of 2000 the CIA documented Brazils Land fighting force to actually have no competition in modern equipment numbers and man power.. Literally by numbers the largest in the World . It was just lucky we developed the Panama canal and subsequent enlargening with a second canal . If Brazil had thought it was a advantage to them. We would never have known of that Country of Panama . Think how often do you hear of Brazil in the news .? And we got our USA tentacles into Ecuador .. They even share our currency . But Brazil , i actually know very little about except what I read in the CIA fact book doing a comparison with in it pages of the various biggest militaries of the world by equipment and manpower . And Brazils was like 1/3 larger than the next biggest militaries . It is a big piece of real estate down there . Encompassing the biggest part of that continent. Our doctrine and religions place and pitt
The West against the East . But Noone has even considered Brazil. That is the quiet giant I think nobody ever wants to upset. And often have wondered why have not heard about immigrants from Brazil or people immigrating there.?

Probably because it's just not high enough on any U.S. national politician's priority list. Politicians get elected based more on their domestic policies than on their foreign policies.


I don't think it's "orchestrated." More likely a result of incompetence or neglect. Most likely, there just aren't any major lobbying groups calling for what I've proposed above, or, if there are, they get drowned out by other lobby groups.

In any case, if there were more people -- and especially more public figures -- calling for more-effective foreign aid, on military-strategic as well as humanitarian grounds, then it might be possible to shame the politicians into having a more competent foreign policy.

Unfortunately the U.S. has a long history of foreign policy incompetence more generally.

Very interesting. Worth looking into ....

Agreed

You thought the fish's ideas were brilliant?
OK.
<walks away slowly>


[/quote]


And this is "brilliant thinking" because?

Last edited by Pepe on 29 Dec 2022, 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.