Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

1272830323336

Posts

  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html

    From the abstract
    By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.

    � Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    [
    My position is that there aren't a lot of "real problems". It seems like whenever they get brought up, there's data to show that it's just not true. Crime? Not really a problem, high levels of immigrants, illegal included, are correlated with lower levels of crime. Effect on wages? Overall it's pretty much negligible when we're talking about illegal immigrants, as you noted yourself. Unemployment? I addressed that already. There's no effect.

    And again, I have to ask you to stop bringing me into this and focus on what I'm saying. My biography is irrelevant to my argument unless my argument is about me. It's not, so please stop dragging irrelevant personal info into this.

    Crime, very much a problem. All the data we have is based on arrests, and incarcerations, or based on the assumption illegal populations scared of deportation report crimes at the same rate as citizens. The effects on wages are are quite staggering. Anyone without a bachelors degree, IE about 80% of the population has their wages negatively effected by illegal immigration, moreover the average cost of illegal immigrants to the American worker is 1700 per year. This is an average amongst all workers. This is both from research previously cited.

    The truth is that you are looking at a problem from an academic standpoint. Your biography is very much in question when you start stating "there are not a lot of real problems" to people living in the American South West contending with those "not real problems" every day.

    I happen to be a native of Nevada, 15% unemployment is a real problem. Combating illegal immigration can very much help that problem.

    Ah, so your problem is that we're using facts instead of truthiness. Clearly, blacks are inferior to whites because slaveholders thought so and had more contact with black people than abolitionists.

    As for the rest of what you're saying:
    If there is no proof of illegal immigrants being more prone to crime, you cannot conclude that illegal immigrants are more criminally inclined. I would also not that there would be a discernible difference between the statistics on legal and illegal immigrants if being illegal had a significant effect. Illegal rates are consistant with legal rates, so it is safe to assume that the stats on illegal immigrant crime are accurate.

    The very study you keep citing (if memory serves) says that the effect of illegal immigrants on low income workers, while less positive than on high income workers, is negligible, not negative.

    I would love to see your source for 80%, as every source I can find gives 72%. It looks like you tacked on a tenth of the population because you have no integrity and didn't think we'd notice.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html

    From the abstract
    By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.

    � Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.

    While I'm just scanning, I see no indication from that study that prices were accounted for. I can't even find the word "real." You might as well be saying that time increases wages because of inflation.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin, your performance on this page hasn't really put your side of the argument in the best light.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin, your performance on this page hasn't really put your side of the argument in the best light.

    Why? Does my disemboweling of your arguments make you sad?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    The truth is that you are looking at a problem from an academic standpoint. Your biography is very much in question when you start stating "there are not a lot of real problems" to people living in the American South West contending with those "not real problems" every day.

    Anecdotes do not override data.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back504.html

    From the abstract
    By increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent.

    � Among natives without a high school education, who roughly correspond to the poorest tenth of the workforce, the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.

    WRT the first bit, I'm not sure how to interpret that. The linked-to site doesn't actually include the words "real" or "inflation", or, as Scalfin noted, "price". It also doesn't include the figure "1,700" anywhere beyond that first bit that you pasted. Soo... What's that talking about exactly?

    WRT the second bit, I know. The negative effects are pretty much restricted to high-school dropouts (and other recent immigrants). My position is and has been that immigration has a small negative impact on the wages of low-skill native born Americans and a positive impact on everyone else.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin, your performance on this page hasn't really put your side of the argument in the best light.

    He is being uncivil, which I do not appreciate, but this does not weaken his arguments, which insofar as they intersect with mine (the ones I read, in other words) are sound, I believe. Only his rhetoric is weakened by his tone.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    [
    WRT the first bit, I'm not sure how to interpret that. The linked-to site doesn't actually include the words "real" or "inflation", or, as Scalfin noted, "price". It also doesn't include the figure "1,700" anywhere beyond that first bit that you pasted. Soo... What's that talking about exactly?

    WRT the second bit, I know. The negative effects are pretty much restricted to high-school dropouts (and other recent immigrants). My position is and has been that immigration has a small negative impact on the wages of low-skill native born Americans and a positive impact on everyone else.

    Perhaps before you say "The negative affects are pretty much restricted to high school dropouts" you might want to actually read through it.

    back509.gif

    I believe to answer your question on "What's that talking about exactly?" I refer you to the concluding sentence
    It seems that Paul Samuelson was right after all: Wages fall when immigrants increase the size of the workforce.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    This sounds like a great deal of bullshit. Increases in wealth aren't analogous to "net positives," unless you're intentionally leaving out numbers related to non-individual costs and spending.

    Just because middle class people can get cheaper drywall and upper class families can have round-the-clock nannies doesn't offset the unemployment to lower income Americans, nor does it account for federal entitlements and spending that aren't being paid into by the tax base.

    Now seems like a good time to mention the Krugman argument that we should combine unskilled immigration with more progressive taxation policies.

    This isn't a terrible idea.

    I'm actually not opposed to increased immigration. Lord knows that we have the geography and resources to support a growing population. If we could streamline the process into something that would allow for representative input into the tax base, as well as eliminating the mechanisms that incentivize hiring of illegal labor at illegal wages in illegal conditions, everything should return to a normalized state.

    Then again, in the above scenario there likely wouldn't be hardly any illegal immigration at all, as most incentives are by those actions stricken. Streamlining immigration and allowing for widespread and swift legal recognition would actually put illegal laborers out of work, theoretically.

    Okay, I've figured this out. The key to solving the illegal immigrant dilemma is, with the absolute and most martial extent of the law, forcing those who wish to come here for employment into become citizens or resident aliens as soon as possible.

    Then all income would have to be reported to the IRS and wage negotiation would fall under the classical union models. Or basically, the key reasons for immigrating would be entirely removed.

    At legal wages and conditions the US worker earns far more than someone in Mexico can expect to earn, so there will still be a movement northwards. It is hardly as if unskilled immigrants are fleeing excessively protected labor markets in Latin America.

    To "force" people to become legal citizens is simple - make it easier to become one. Hand out green cards like candy and newly-legal immigrants will start organizing to protect themselves; unionization is impossible if your employer can sic USCIS on you.

    I mean, if we're no longer opposed to unskilled immigration, then all the intricate filtering processes become somewhat less useful, yes?

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    [
    WRT the first bit, I'm not sure how to interpret that. The linked-to site doesn't actually include the words "real" or "inflation", or, as Scalfin noted, "price". It also doesn't include the figure "1,700" anywhere beyond that first bit that you pasted. Soo... What's that talking about exactly?

    WRT the second bit, I know. The negative effects are pretty much restricted to high-school dropouts (and other recent immigrants). My position is and has been that immigration has a small negative impact on the wages of low-skill native born Americans and a positive impact on everyone else.

    Perhaps before you say "The negative affects are pretty much restricted to high school dropouts" you might want to actually read through it.

    back509.gif

    I believe to answer your question on "What's that talking about exactly?" I refer you to the concluding sentence
    It seems that Paul Samuelson was right after all: Wages fall when immigrants increase the size of the workforce.

    And wages rise when you measure with cents instead of dollars. Without any inclusion of prices or accounting of how the economics of high immigrant cities effects neighboring cities, the entire "study" is empty numbers. The fact that the people conducting the study tried to pass it off as saying something makes their numbers incredibly suspect.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    @Detharin

    First, the author you are citing presents a minority opinion; he himself acknowledges as much.

    Second, the obvious problem with his approach to generating counterfactuals can be seen in this paragraph:
    To see how this approach can be used to measure the labor market impact of immigration, consider the following example. Recent immigration has increased the relative supply of high school dropouts substantially. The labor market implications of this increase clearly depend on how the distribution of work experience in the immigrant population contrasts with that of natives. After all, one particular set of native high school dropouts would likely be affected if all the new low-skill immigrants were very young, and a very different set would be affected if the immigrants were near retirement age. The approach introduced here exploits the fact that the age distributions of immigrants and natives differ substantially - even within a schooling group.

    He is assuming that the relative usefulness of the identified native groups hasn't changed between 1960 and 2000. This doesn't seem very plausible.

    When he isn't writing for the audience at CIS.org - which would be obviously disinclined to question anti-immigration analysis - Borjas is more circumspect:
    The "all other things equal" assumption is not sensible from a long-run perspective. Over time, employers will certainly make capital investments to take advantage of the cheaper labor. This adjustment implies that, in the long run, the average worker is not affected by immigration, but the wage of high school dropouts still fell by 5%.

    Which brings us back to Loren Michael's (correct) assertion that a surge of unskilled immigration lowers the relative real wages of unskilled workers - and, equivalently, raises the relative real wages of skilled workers.

    Note that Borjas very carefully steps around the general-equilibrium dynamic by only emphasizing that higher immigration in one group lowers the relative real wages of that group; this is again equivalent to raising the relative real wages of other groups. The "standard economic theory" he keeps mentioning actually says that the total wages of everyone goes up due to gains from trade, but Borjas seems curiously hesitant to mention that!

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    How are we defining unskilled and skilled?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The problem remains however that the people most effected, some 15-20% of the population depending on source, are the our lowest educated and often minority population. The increase in unemployment, and underemployment accompanying the loss of jobs to illegal immigrants further increases costs on the same middle and upper classes to pay for the existing social safety nets we have in place.

    From all research we have available, and that has presented in this thread, the net effect of illegal immigration on our countries finances is a statistical wash to the tune of +/- 1%. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the illegal immigrants exploit, and are exploited by the system.

    Which is why it returns to who gets screwed? We eject the immigrants, the effects ripple through the system and it is a net wash. We bring in more, the poor get screwed, the effects ripple through the system and it is a net wash.

    Personally I would rather see our borders secure, and the jobs filled by Americas poor. I would rather see the crimes done by illegal immigrants not have happened at all due to better enforcement. That really is a matter of personal choice, one could just as easily choose the opposite.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    How are we defining unskilled and skilled?

    From most of the offered research, bachelors degree IIRC.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Personally I would rather see our borders secure, and the jobs filled by Americas poor. I would rather see the crimes done by illegal immigrants not have happened at all due to better enforcement.

    Well, yes, the argument is that the policies you favor don't improve welfare. It is of course bad to have illegal immigrants risking their lives sneaking across the border. Handing out green cards at the border would work much better, eh?

    Presumably everyone prefers full employment and less people shot by border police. What we disagree on is how to get there.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The problem with handing out green cards is that it removes the primary reason we benefit from illegal immigration, their exploitability. Once they cease being exploitable they cease being useful. We do not need more workers willing to work legal wages in legal conditions.

    I would rather make conditions harsh enough to discourage them from coming here in the first place. Discourage them from coming in the first place, we have higher employment of American workers, and less people shot by the border police.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    The problem remains however that the people most effected, some 15-20% of the population depending on source, are the our lowest educated and often minority population. The increase in unemployment, and underemployment accompanying the loss of jobs to illegal immigrants further increases costs on the same middle and upper classes to pay for the existing social safety nets we have in place.

    From all research we have available, and that has presented in this thread, the net effect of illegal immigration on our countries finances is a statistical wash to the tune of +/- 1%. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the illegal immigrants exploit, and are exploited by the system.

    Which is why it returns to who gets screwed? We eject the immigrants, the effects ripple through the system and it is a net wash. We bring in more, the poor get screwed, the effects ripple through the system and it is a net wash.

    Personally I would rather see our borders secure, and the jobs filled by Americas poor. I would rather see the crimes done by illegal immigrants not have happened at all due to better enforcement. That really is a matter of personal choice, one could just as easily choose the opposite.

    Actually, those jobs would be filled by Mexicans. In Mexico. For Mexican demand. Really, you seem unable to understand that there are two sides of any economy or how reducing the population doesn't reduce unemployment. By your logic, we could lower the unemployment rate to zero by killing a tenth of the population.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I know a small business owner who sells about a hundred 15 inch LCD televisions a month, it's the core of his business, and virtually all of those are to Mexican families (a large number illegals, if he's to be believed) who are buying them and shipping them home

    so I know at least one guy who'd be fucked without em, and all his employees

    override367 on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Actually, those jobs would be filled by Mexicans. In Mexico. For Mexican demand. Really, you seem unable to understand that there are two sides of any economy or how reducing the population doesn't reduce unemployment. By your logic, we could lower the unemployment rate to zero by killing a tenth of the population.

    It would certainly reduce. Whether it would be all the way to zero is hard to say on so little information.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Actually, those jobs would be filled by Mexicans. In Mexico. For Mexican demand. Really, you seem unable to understand that there are two sides of any economy or how reducing the population doesn't reduce unemployment. By your logic, we could lower the unemployment rate to zero by killing a tenth of the population.

    It would certainly reduce. Whether it would be all the way to zero is hard to say on so little information.

    Really?
    unemployment_rate_annotated.jpg
    Really?
    800px-US_Population_Graph_-_1790_to_2000.svg.png

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    The problem with handing out green cards is that it removes the primary reason we benefit from illegal immigration, their exploitability. Once they cease being exploitable they cease being useful. We do not need more workers willing to work legal wages in legal conditions.

    I would rather make conditions harsh enough to discourage them from coming here in the first place. Discourage them from coming in the first place, we have higher employment of American workers, and less people shot by the border police.

    I don't understand your preference here. Why is the second paragraph preferred to the first? It seems like the first solves whatever problems there are without having to resort to force. The second one just seems to assume that harsher punishments are all the current paradigm needs. This necessarily is going to entail the expenditure of a lot of resources (as the current paradigm already does), and if the drug war is any indicator, would be a project doomed to failure.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    The problem with handing out green cards is that it removes the primary reason we benefit from illegal immigration, their exploitability. Once they cease being exploitable they cease being useful. We do not need more workers willing to work legal wages in legal conditions.

    I would rather make conditions harsh enough to discourage them from coming here in the first place. Discourage them from coming in the first place, we have higher employment of American workers, and less people shot by the border police.

    I don't understand your preference here. Why is the second paragraph preferred to the first? It seems like the first solves whatever problems there are without having to resort to force. The second one just seems to assume that harsher punishments are all the current paradigm needs. This necessarily is going to entail the expenditure of a lot of resources (as the current paradigm already does), and if the drug war is any indicator, would be a project doomed to failure.

    Because the first does not solve any problem, it merely creates more. You see once we grant citizenship to an illegal immigrant they cease to offer any of the financial gains they would otherwise, and we gain more liability as they now further qualify for government assistance.

    We do not have a market for people willing to work for minimum wage. We have a huge surplus of people willing to work legal wages in legal conditions. This is not the job market that is filled by illegal immigrants. The job market that is filled by illegal immigrants is one for illegal wages, or illegal conditions. That is the niche they fill, and they fill it only so long as they are denied the legitimacy of regular citizens, otherwise citizens would be filling those jobs.

    Granting them green cards means they are not longer eligible for the jobs they previously qualified for, and instead are dumped into the existing surplus labor pool while now qualifying for government assistance.

    You seem to be missing this, I am not sure how I can explain it any more clearly other than the only thing an illegal immigrant offers beyond a citizen is how much they are willing to be illegally exploited by the employer. If you give them any status, or recourse against said employer you decrease their desirability to employers. If they cannot be exploited, paid dirt cheap, and made to work long hours they will not be hired. If they have legal status, and thus legal recourse against said illegal conditions, the jobs will go to American workers paid minimum wage. If they were not depressing the job market, said job might very well pay above minimum wage.

    What you suggest is basically handing every unskilled laborer who comes across the border a green card and a welfare check.

    Basic example. Joe runs an illegal sweatshop paying 100 illegal immigrants 1 dollar an hour to make socks. Those 100 illegal immigrants, lacking in any form of legitimacy, are happy to take any job they can get and will work happily. President Barry passes a mass amnesty, and now those 100 illegal immigrants are now citizens, since they now have legitimacy they both have a greater ability to find other jobs, albeit in job market with very high competition, go to Joe and demand minimum wage, or apply for one of our governments many and varied social safety nets they now qualify for. If Joe refuses to pay them minimum wage they have legal recourse through the court system. Joe instead fires all 100 of them, and hires 100 new illegal immigrants who just missed President Barry's amnesty, and are working in the hopes of another one.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    So, it turns out that the Obama Administration has been significantly more aggressive in locating businesses using illegal labor. The move? Auditing corporate paper trails - making it much harder to hide illegals on the payroll.
    Over the past year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted audits of employee files at more than 2,900 companies. The agency has levied a record $3 million in civil fines so far this year on businesses that hired unauthorized immigrants, according to official figures. Thousands of those workers have been fired, immigrant groups estimate.

    Employers say the audits reach more companies than the work-site roundups of the administration of President George W. Bush. The audits force businesses to fire every suspected illegal immigrant on the payroll— not just those who happened to be on duty at the time of a raid — and make it much harder to hire other unauthorized workers as replacements. Auditing is “a far more effective enforcement tool,” said Mike Gempler, executive director of the Washington Growers League, which includes many worried fruit growers.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I know a small business owner who sells about a hundred 15 inch LCD televisions a month, it's the core of his business, and virtually all of those are to Mexican families (a large number illegals, if he's to be believed) who are buying them and shipping them home

    so I know at least one guy who'd be fucked without em, and all his employees

    Almost anyone can save for 6 months to get a nice, big TV to watch netflix on. That includes immigrants, legal or not.

    Anyone have a study on the saving rate for immigrants compared to the general population? Maybe they're just more conservative with their money.

    MKR on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    At legal wages and conditions the US worker earns far more than someone in Mexico can expect to earn, so there will still be a movement northwards. It is hardly as if unskilled immigrants are fleeing excessively protected labor markets in Latin America.

    That's fine, because increased immigration isn't really at all the problem we're dealing with. The problems stem from a highly-incentivized class of uneducated and unskilled workers undercutting wages of American citizens, integrating poorly into mainstream society, and putting a huge strain on government resources vis a vis entitlements and aid, not the fact that we suddenly have a lot more Mexicans than we're used to.

    So yeah. Let's go crazy and force legal alien residence and work visas down the throat of anyone who wants to come here for a job. Maybe not citizenship perhaps, and probably not birthright citizenship to their children, either, unless the parents are also filing for citizenship. But yeah, let's give these people the legal authority to live and work here . . . . and all the playing field-leveling that entails.

    I think you'll find soon enough that when employers have to choose between unskilled immigrant labor and skilled American labor at a same or comparable rate of pay, the immigration problem will take care of itself.


    Basically, all this plan asks for is thorough tracking (photo ID, fingerprinting, SSN) for anyone wishing to work here and mandatory background checks. I don't see why both of those couldn't be thrown under the Fed Govt's umbrella.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    I don't understand your preference here. Why is the second paragraph preferred to the first? It seems like the first solves whatever problems there are without having to resort to force. The second one just seems to assume that harsher punishments are all the current paradigm needs. This necessarily is going to entail the expenditure of a lot of resources (as the current paradigm already does), and if the drug war is any indicator, would be a project doomed to failure.

    Because the first does not solve any problem, it merely creates more. You see once we grant citizenship to an illegal immigrant they cease to offer any of the financial gains they would otherwise, and we gain more liability as they now further qualify for government assistance.

    We do not have a market for people willing to work for minimum wage. We have a huge surplus of people willing to work legal wages in legal conditions. This is not the job market that is filled by illegal immigrants. The job market that is filled by illegal immigrants is one for illegal wages, or illegal conditions. That is the niche they fill, and they fill it only so long as they are denied the legitimacy of regular citizens, otherwise citizens would be filling those jobs.

    Granting them green cards means they are not longer eligible for the jobs they previously qualified for, and instead are dumped into the existing surplus labor pool while now qualifying for government assistance.

    You seem to be missing this, I am not sure how I can explain it any more clearly other than the only thing an illegal immigrant offers beyond a citizen is how much they are willing to be illegally exploited by the employer. If you give them any status, or recourse against said employer you decrease their desirability to employers. If they cannot be exploited, paid dirt cheap, and made to work long hours they will not be hired. If they have legal status, and thus legal recourse against said illegal conditions, the jobs will go to American workers paid minimum wage. If they were not depressing the job market, said job might very well pay above minimum wage.

    What you suggest is basically handing every unskilled laborer who comes across the border a green card and a welfare check.

    It seems to me that if you restrict welfare that recent immigrants qualify for, you solve all the problems you bring up. That strikes me as both politically and legislatively feasible.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    I don't understand your preference here. Why is the second paragraph preferred to the first? It seems like the first solves whatever problems there are without having to resort to force. The second one just seems to assume that harsher punishments are all the current paradigm needs. This necessarily is going to entail the expenditure of a lot of resources (as the current paradigm already does), and if the drug war is any indicator, would be a project doomed to failure.

    Because the first does not solve any problem, it merely creates more. You see once we grant citizenship to an illegal immigrant they cease to offer any of the financial gains they would otherwise, and we gain more liability as they now further qualify for government assistance.

    We do not have a market for people willing to work for minimum wage. We have a huge surplus of people willing to work legal wages in legal conditions. This is not the job market that is filled by illegal immigrants. The job market that is filled by illegal immigrants is one for illegal wages, or illegal conditions. That is the niche they fill, and they fill it only so long as they are denied the legitimacy of regular citizens, otherwise citizens would be filling those jobs.

    Granting them green cards means they are not longer eligible for the jobs they previously qualified for, and instead are dumped into the existing surplus labor pool while now qualifying for government assistance.

    You seem to be missing this, I am not sure how I can explain it any more clearly other than the only thing an illegal immigrant offers beyond a citizen is how much they are willing to be illegally exploited by the employer. If you give them any status, or recourse against said employer you decrease their desirability to employers. If they cannot be exploited, paid dirt cheap, and made to work long hours they will not be hired. If they have legal status, and thus legal recourse against said illegal conditions, the jobs will go to American workers paid minimum wage. If they were not depressing the job market, said job might very well pay above minimum wage.

    What you suggest is basically handing every unskilled laborer who comes across the border a green card and a welfare check.

    It seems to me that if you restrict welfare that recent immigrants qualify for, you solve all the problems you bring up. That strikes me as both politically and legislatively feasible.

    Except that's not how the game is played. Right now you have forces at work trying to give illegal aliens the right to apply for scholarships and grants and other benefits through the DREAM Act. So your argument that it is "politically and legislatively feasible" to cut benefits to immigrants falls flat on its face.

    Also, immigrants are supposed to be able to prove they won't become a public charge, which for some reason applying for benefits such as welfare and the like doesn't fall under.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    I don't understand your preference here. Why is the second paragraph preferred to the first? It seems like the first solves whatever problems there are without having to resort to force. The second one just seems to assume that harsher punishments are all the current paradigm needs. This necessarily is going to entail the expenditure of a lot of resources (as the current paradigm already does), and if the drug war is any indicator, would be a project doomed to failure.

    Because the first does not solve any problem, it merely creates more. You see once we grant citizenship to an illegal immigrant they cease to offer any of the financial gains they would otherwise, and we gain more liability as they now further qualify for government assistance.

    We do not have a market for people willing to work for minimum wage. We have a huge surplus of people willing to work legal wages in legal conditions. This is not the job market that is filled by illegal immigrants. The job market that is filled by illegal immigrants is one for illegal wages, or illegal conditions. That is the niche they fill, and they fill it only so long as they are denied the legitimacy of regular citizens, otherwise citizens would be filling those jobs.

    Granting them green cards means they are not longer eligible for the jobs they previously qualified for, and instead are dumped into the existing surplus labor pool while now qualifying for government assistance.

    You seem to be missing this, I am not sure how I can explain it any more clearly other than the only thing an illegal immigrant offers beyond a citizen is how much they are willing to be illegally exploited by the employer. If you give them any status, or recourse against said employer you decrease their desirability to employers. If they cannot be exploited, paid dirt cheap, and made to work long hours they will not be hired. If they have legal status, and thus legal recourse against said illegal conditions, the jobs will go to American workers paid minimum wage. If they were not depressing the job market, said job might very well pay above minimum wage.

    What you suggest is basically handing every unskilled laborer who comes across the border a green card and a welfare check.

    It seems to me that if you restrict welfare that recent immigrants qualify for, you solve all the problems you bring up. That strikes me as both politically and legislatively feasible.

    Except that's not how the game is played. Right now you have forces at work trying to give illegal aliens the right to apply for scholarships and grants and other benefits through the DREAM Act. So your argument that it is "politically and legislatively feasible" to cut benefits to immigrants falls flat on its face.

    Also, immigrants are supposed to be able to prove they won't become a public charge, which for some reason applying for benefits such as welfare and the like doesn't fall under.

    So brown people are only allowed in the US when they can prove the negative. Got it.


    Why is it that people always oppose birthright citizenship when it fills its intended purpose of making sure that brown people can get the rights of citizens and don't become a permanent underclass?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010

    Yes, the argument for immigration is extremely similar to the argument for globalization in general. Free migration is a component of globalization, so... well, of course they sound the same. I'm not sure which article you're referring to that neglects that they remit a lot of their money. The NPR article did not mention "middle class", so I'm not sure where you're picking out that assumption from the article. This factcheck.org article quotes actual relevant experts and backs up the NPR claims that you take issue with.

    And globalization has, so far, gutted the US manufacturing industry, contributed to general world wide environmental problems, and in general has concentrated the wealth mainly in the hands of the rich and powerful.

    Your fact check article (which has NOTHING to do with your NPR article, only references an advert that was run in Arizona) only approaches SKILLED labor after a brief nod towards the illegal labor issue (skilled labor is suffering to be honest is suffering under the influx of H-1B visa holders who are willing to be exploited for the opportunity to become LAPRs. That's a different story entirely, however.) It pretty blatantly refuses to deal with the average unskilled Mexican worker from Sinaloa, and instead puts on its blinders and uses Economics 101 logic such as "more people buying things makes the economy grow!" and doesn't even address the social costs of illegal immigration.

    You'll have to excuse me if I have a laugh at the Cato Institute continuing its "free market free market" mantra in order to please its corporate backers and kick the last legs out of the American Worker. The only reason that liberals and conservative elites agree on this issue is because the first sees a brand new voter base, and the second sees its chance to drive down the cost of labor and living standards of everyone w/o a bachelor's degree even further. To those who are actually suffering in the trenches of the job market (not them, not you), the broad arguments they make seem rather out of touch.

    Mind you, these are the same people (majority economists) that brought us to the conditions that led to the housing bubble and Enron's collapse. On top of it, we've tried amnesty before. Looking around, it doesn't seem like it was a massive success as these elites are trying to claim it will be if we just do it again.
    I don't really care what you do for employment, and what I do is irrelevant. Being "out of touch" sounds like an ad hominem. My status is irrelevant, and I'd rather we keep ourselves out of this. If I had said that I'm recently unemployed in Los Angeles, would that have helped or hurt my argument? It would have done neither.

    If you were an unemployed citizen in LA, I imagine you would have a different attitude then your current status as a sometimes expatriate who hops back and forth from Asia to here to find work. Much like detharin already pointed out, you're so far removed from the problem that the reality of what's going on doesn't connect with you because you've surrounded yourself with weak sources that speak in the broadest terms about how "good" immigration is. Even those sources can't help but blend "illegal" and "legal" to try and make a weak point, and you've pretty much hand waved the last 40+ pages of proof showing otherwise and have no clue what life is like in say.. Cochise County, Arizona.

    I've said it once, I'll say it again. Stop being disingenous. Stop linking to giant walls of text made up of weasel words.
    I understand that this is addressed to Captain Carrot, but it doesn't really address my issues with what you posted which were very specific. You noted a correlation, but did not establish causation. There is an alternative story that works just fine though. As Scalfin noted, the unemployment rate could have to do with the fact that the state is a place that people moved to because of an economic bubble that popped, that doesn't have a lot of local opportunities for things that aren't related to the entertainment industry, which is hurting very badly. Now, this could be true IN ADDITION to your hypothesis of immigrants staying there and killing the job market, but unless I missed something you haven't posted anything to show that this is the case.

    Like I told Captain Carrot, there's no amount of proof that is going to satisfy you short of me getting on my big boy pants, driving to Nevada, and running my own independent study. Which is a bit beyond my means. I've led you to the water, if you don't want to drink, fine by me.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Nevada may have both, but you haven't even come close to proving that they're related.

    There will be no amount of proof I can post that will convince you that illegal immigration, Nevada's construction & services industry (both heavily represented by illegal aliens), and its highest in the nation unemployment rate are related. Ergo, I will not waste my time trying to convince you..

    Well, you could start by posting something that is actual proof rather than a couple of correlating data points.
    Like I told Captain Carrot, there's no amount of proof that is going to satisfy you short of me getting on my big boy pants, driving to Nevada, and running my own independent study. Which is a bit beyond my means. I've led you to the water, if you don't want to drink, fine by me.
    Funny how it's my fault that you made a claim but got pissy when someone called you on it, and refused to provide any support.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Basically, all this plan asks for is thorough tracking (photo ID, fingerprinting, SSN) for anyone wishing to work here and mandatory background checks. I don't see why both of those couldn't be thrown under the Fed Govt's umbrella.

    Because you'd have to photo ID everyone for this to work, not just immigrants. A citizen not having ID isn't a crime, but if you make not having ID a crime for immigrants, then you've just made citizens, particularly of the brown variety, have to bear ID anyway. Compulsory carrying of an identity card everywhere you go on penalty of fine or imprisonment, etc.

    The US must be willing to practice considerably more state surveillance than it does today - unique ID numbers for everyone, tracking every individual's employment and place of work and home, etc. This could be coordinated with the Internal Revenue Service and so on.

    This isn't necessarily a problem; I think America would get on just fine if it did enact and enforce national ID document programs. But you have your fellow Americans to convince, not me.

    ronya on
    aRkpc.gif
  • Options
    sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If you were an unemployed citizen in LA, I imagine you would have a different attitude then your current status as a sometimes expatriate who hops back and forth from Asia to here to find work.

    Okay, I'll bite. My fiance is a (mostly) unemployed grad student fighting for substitute teaching work in the LA/OC/IE regions. He doesn't want to pick fruit in fields all day or do construction work. Which illegal immigrants are taking his potential jobs?

    I'm currently employed, but occasionally look for other opportunities on the dreadful market. My closest competition are bilingual English/Spanish secretaries. Fortunately, the pay is so low for those jobs that I would make out better just collecting unemployment and holding out for something else (or going back to school). Which illegal immigrants are taking my potential jobs?

    sidhaethe on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Nevada may have both, but you haven't even come close to proving that they're related.

    There will be no amount of proof I can post that will convince you that illegal immigration, Nevada's construction & services industry (both heavily represented by illegal aliens), and its highest in the nation unemployment rate are related. Ergo, I will not waste my time trying to convince you..

    Well, you could start by posting something that is actual proof rather than a couple of correlating data points.
    Like I told Captain Carrot, there's no amount of proof that is going to satisfy you short of me getting on my big boy pants, driving to Nevada, and running my own independent study. Which is a bit beyond my means. I've led you to the water, if you don't want to drink, fine by me.
    Funny how it's my fault that you made a claim but got pissy when someone called you on it, and refused to provide any support.

    The fact that you refuse to even consider that the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the state with the highest amount of illegals, with the greatest reliance on two industries traditionally relied on by illegal labor and the fact you refuse to even consider they're inter related, proves my point about you and your refusal to accept proof otherwise.

    Hell, according to Loren's logic, Nevada should be overflowing with prosperity right now.

    No one is getting pissy but you, champ. But carry on.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    sidhaethe wrote: »
    If you were an unemployed citizen in LA, I imagine you would have a different attitude then your current status as a sometimes expatriate who hops back and forth from Asia to here to find work.

    Okay, I'll bite. My fiance is a (mostly) unemployed grad student fighting for substitute teaching work in the LA/OC/IE regions. He doesn't want to pick fruit in fields all day or do construction work. Which illegal immigrants are taking his potential jobs?

    I'm currently employed, but occasionally look for other opportunities on the dreadful market. My closest competition are bilingual English/Spanish secretaries. Fortunately, the pay is so low for those jobs that I would make out better just collecting unemployment and holding out for something else (or going back to school). Which illegal immigrants are taking my potential jobs?

    Your fiance is hardly representative of the larger job market, as is Loren. It sounds more like he made bad career choices as opposed to being pushed out thanks to illegal labor. If he was a carpenter or otherwise involved in the construction industry, we'd both be singing a different tune right now.

    As for you, I don't know what the hell you do. I'm not sure if you've followed, but most of mine and detharin's arguments have been about illegal labor affecting blue collar and/or low skilled industries.

    Both of your examples are obvious white collar jobs. Do you see the problem with your "biting"?

    EDIT: No illegal immigrants are taking my job anytime soon. That doesn't mean because "I've got mine" that it isn't a larger problem.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Nevada may have both, but you haven't even come close to proving that they're related.

    There will be no amount of proof I can post that will convince you that illegal immigration, Nevada's construction & services industry (both heavily represented by illegal aliens), and its highest in the nation unemployment rate are related. Ergo, I will not waste my time trying to convince you..

    Well, you could start by posting something that is actual proof rather than a couple of correlating data points.
    Like I told Captain Carrot, there's no amount of proof that is going to satisfy you short of me getting on my big boy pants, driving to Nevada, and running my own independent study. Which is a bit beyond my means. I've led you to the water, if you don't want to drink, fine by me.
    Funny how it's my fault that you made a claim but got pissy when someone called you on it, and refused to provide any support.

    The fact that you refuse to even consider that the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the state with the highest amount of illegals, with the greatest reliance on two industries traditionally relied on by illegal labor and the fact you refuse to even consider they're inter related, proves my point about you and your refusal to accept proof otherwise.
    You haven't offered any proof. You claim that those facts are related, but have yet to back up that claim. I'm willing to consider it, but so far your arguments have been shitty.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Nevada may have both, but you haven't even come close to proving that they're related.

    There will be no amount of proof I can post that will convince you that illegal immigration, Nevada's construction & services industry (both heavily represented by illegal aliens), and its highest in the nation unemployment rate are related. Ergo, I will not waste my time trying to convince you..

    Well, you could start by posting something that is actual proof rather than a couple of correlating data points.
    Like I told Captain Carrot, there's no amount of proof that is going to satisfy you short of me getting on my big boy pants, driving to Nevada, and running my own independent study. Which is a bit beyond my means. I've led you to the water, if you don't want to drink, fine by me.
    Funny how it's my fault that you made a claim but got pissy when someone called you on it, and refused to provide any support.

    The fact that you refuse to even consider that the state with the highest unemployment rate, in the state with the highest amount of illegals, with the greatest reliance on two industries traditionally relied on by illegal labor and the fact you refuse to even consider they're inter related, proves my point about you and your refusal to accept proof otherwise.
    You haven't offered any proof. You claim that those facts are related, but have yet to back up that claim. I'm willing to consider it, but so far your arguments have been shitty.

    Not to mention the fact that he held the same view before the bubble burst, when Nevada had the fastest growing economy and immigrant population. Now, the rate of immigration is down, as is the Nevada economy, so clearly the Nevada economy was reliant on illegal immigrants.

    Or maybe it's just that illegal immigrants, like everyone else, was drawn to a piece of shit state by an economy built on bullshit.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Basically, all this plan asks for is thorough tracking (photo ID, fingerprinting, SSN) for anyone wishing to work here and mandatory background checks. I don't see why both of those couldn't be thrown under the Fed Govt's umbrella.

    Because you'd have to photo ID everyone for this to work, not just immigrants. A citizen not having ID isn't a crime, but if you make not having ID a crime for immigrants, then you've just made citizens, particularly of the brown variety, have to bear ID anyway. Compulsory carrying of an identity card everywhere you go on penalty of fine or imprisonment, etc.

    The US must be willing to practice considerably more state surveillance than it does today - unique ID numbers for everyone, tracking every individual's employment and place of work and home, etc. This could be coordinated with the Internal Revenue Service and so on.

    This isn't necessarily a problem; I think America would get on just fine if it did enact and enforce national ID document programs. But you have your fellow Americans to convince, not me.

    I'm on board with all of this. I've never understood the harblegarble over the national ID. You have to have a SSN to get a job, and almost everyone has a State ID or driver's license, so what's the big deal?

    Atomika on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    You haven't offered any proof. You claim that those facts are related, but have yet to back up that claim. I'm willing to consider it, but so far your arguments have been shitty.

    As opposed to your arguments, which are...not present.

    I've presented an argument. You've refused to accept it as an argument, or even to offer proof to the contrary, which makes my original point in regards to you to begin with.

    We can continue this rousing bout of "NUH UH" "UH HUH" some more I suppose.
    I'm on board with all of this. I've never understood the harblegarble over the national ID. You have to have a SSN to get a job, and almost everyone has a State ID or driver's license, so what's the big deal?

    Fear mongering from both sides really. "Mark of the Beast" talk is some of it (no, I am not making that up), but there are politicians getting a lot of mileage arguing that somehow it's "unamerican" and what not to have a national ID.


    Of course, you have the other side going off about E-Verify and Secure Communities "putting fear into the immigrant community", and dreadlocked college kids screaming about "The NAZIS asked for papers, maaan!" so the noise to signal ratio is through the roof in general.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Basically, all this plan asks for is thorough tracking (photo ID, fingerprinting, SSN) for anyone wishing to work here and mandatory background checks. I don't see why both of those couldn't be thrown under the Fed Govt's umbrella.

    Because you'd have to photo ID everyone for this to work, not just immigrants. A citizen not having ID isn't a crime, but if you make not having ID a crime for immigrants, then you've just made citizens, particularly of the brown variety, have to bear ID anyway. Compulsory carrying of an identity card everywhere you go on penalty of fine or imprisonment, etc.

    The US must be willing to practice considerably more state surveillance than it does today - unique ID numbers for everyone, tracking every individual's employment and place of work and home, etc. This could be coordinated with the Internal Revenue Service and so on.

    This isn't necessarily a problem; I think America would get on just fine if it did enact and enforce national ID document programs. But you have your fellow Americans to convince, not me.

    I'm on board with all of this. I've never understood the harblegarble over the national ID. You have to have a SSN to get a job, and almost everyone has a State ID or driver's license, so what's the big deal?

    Incredibly expensive. Produces a vast database that is then prone to data loss, etc.

    TL DR on
Sign In or Register to comment.