Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

13468936

Posts

  • Options
    NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    There seems to be a view among people who want to drastically limit immigration that the economy is a zero sum game and that if a more open immigration policy is adopted this will somehow be to the detriment of the working poor (literally a "they took our jerbs!" theory).

    I don't know enough about macro economics to say if this is true or not but I look at the growth in the U.S. economy over the past 100 years and my own experience in markets and I come to the conclusion that economy is not a zero sum game and that adding to the populace can actually help grow the economy for the benefit of all.

    Again, we have not had an open-border policy over the past 20 years and look has what happened to manufacturing and blue-collar jobs. Shockingly, poor immigrants didn't take those low-education / high-paying jobs away, global trade and favored nation status with China did. People against more immigration are missing the forest for the trees - if you want to protect the working poor focus on the various unbalanced trade pacts this country has vs the immigrants.

    I ask again, what low-education / high paying jobs are left that immigrants would steal from working class Americans? If you want to protect fast-food and other low-skill / low-pay jobs for working class Americans I guess that can be your own crusade. I would rather focus on getting poor Americans the education they need so they can, you know, get a job to pull themselves above the poverty line. Let the immigrants have those service jobs that no one wants.

    The decimation of blue-collar jobs is a direct result of this country's trade policies, not immigration. I again struggle with how people can be for free trade in its current forms while simultaneously raving against the hordes of immigrants that are going to take away working class jobs. News flash! Those jobs are already gone and it wasn't the immigrants who took them.

    From what I've gathered, I think the argument goes that some immigration is good. Too much immigration breaks the system though. Think of a dam? You let some water through and you get electricity. But if too much water hits it, the whole things breaks and nobody gets anything out of it.

    Namrok on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    I ask again, what low-education / high paying jobs are left that immigrants would steal from working class Americans? If you want to protect fast-food and other low-skill / low-pay jobs for working class Americans I guess that can be your own crusade. I would rather focus on getting poor Americans the education they need so they can, you know, get a job to pull themselves above the poverty line. Let the immigrants have those service jobs that no one wants.

    The decimation of blue-collar jobs is a direct result of this country's trade policies, not immigration. I again struggle with how people can be for free trade in its current forms while simultaneously raving against the hordes of immigrants that are going to take away working class jobs. News flash! Those jobs are already gone and it wasn't the immigrants who took them.
    We're not talking about illegals coming in and taking away factory jobs. We're talking about illegals coming in and putting downward wage pressure on all jobs that are open to people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Sure, there is a floor, in the form of minimum wage laws (though some illegals will work for less than that, in some cases) . But, jobs that might have paid $10 in the absence of illegal labor (say, working for a moving company or picking produce in hot weather climates) are going to see the hourly wage go down, since there is now more labor competing for the jobs.

    It's a pretty simple calculus- if you increase the supply of labor, wages go down. That benefits the business owners, of course, but it screws over poorer Americans, primarily, as they see jobs that might have formerly provided a living wage plummet down to minimum wage levels due to the availability of illegal labor. If this was the result of internal market economics, so be it. But, injecting a large pool of illegal labor into the US is inevitably going to lower living standards for the poorest members of our society.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    There's nothing stopping the companies from opening factories in Mexico, though. Immigration is like outsourcing for workers, which drives up wages overall because people will move away from areas with low wages.

    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
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    There's nothing stopping the companies from opening factories in Mexico, though. Immigration is like outsourcing for workers, which drives up wages overall because people will move away from areas with low wages.

    They can't outsource the moving company though.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    No, we can't legally or morally kick out our own citizenry, no matter how poor and uneducated they might be. But, we have no obligation to import more poor and uneducated people, whose presence will compound the problem. Your position seems to be- we have a problem with the underclass in the United States, so let's make the underclass bigger. I'm wondering why you can't see the problem with this.
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own? Your logic keeps going in a circle. If having poor people is bad and sending them to Mexico is the solution, it shouldn't matter where they came from, we should just send all poor people to Mexico. Otherwise, you are after all making a distinction regarding someone's legal rights based on a factor they have no control over - where they were born. If you're born here it's ok to be poor, if you weren't, it's not.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If you take a poor person, who is at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder and is living a marginal lifestlye, and import a group of people who are willing to accept an even lower standard of living, then the standard of living for the poor citizen is going to drop. But you don't give a fuck- you'd rather make our poor even poorer in order to increase the standard of living for illegal immigrants.
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him. Stop pretending like you or I are going out of our way for him, to "let" him work a tough job for shit pay. And I wouldn't say "I don't give a fuck" about the American who loses his job. But I would say, "labor just got even cheaper around here, that's a good time to try starting a business."
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Look, I agree that poverty in this country is often a result of bad personal choices. But, I want to increase the standard of living for the American poor, to the extent possible.
    Because they are Americans, not because they are poor, correct?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You, on the other hand, seem to be in favor of kicking them down to the standard of living acceptable for illegals from the poorer parts of Mexico, for some inexplicable reason. Again, are you surprised that such a policy is not popular with the electorate? Would your campaign slogan be "I promise to make the poor poorer so that the upper classes can have cheaper domestic help and easier access to poor women from south of the Rio Grande who have been forced into a life of prostitution?"
    Yeah, this stuff is getting old. I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't believe protectionism is all that great, and that the fears of ruining the lives of Americans aren't generally well founded. It doesn't push our standard of living down to Mexico's nearly as much as it brings the standard of living for immigrants up to that of our poor. To the extent that it does depress living standards for our poor, I think that for individuals this is overcome in the not-so-long-term by the overall icnrease in standard of living from the positive economic effects.
    Scalfin wrote: »
    There's nothing stopping the companies from opening factories in Mexico, though. Immigration is like outsourcing for workers, which drives up wages overall because people will move away from areas with low wages.
    Exactly. I'd rather have the factory here, with immigrants, so maybe some of the misplaced Americans can get jobs as managers and and such. Of course, not all jobs can be moved overseas, but the protectionist dogma is still the same. It might protect a certain group in the short-term, but it tends to depress everythign for everyone in the long-term and just lead to more and more protectionism and isolation and economic stagnation.

    Yar on
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    I ask again, what low-education / high paying jobs are left that immigrants would steal from working class Americans? If you want to protect fast-food and other low-skill / low-pay jobs for working class Americans I guess that can be your own crusade. I would rather focus on getting poor Americans the education they need so they can, you know, get a job to pull themselves above the poverty line. Let the immigrants have those service jobs that no one wants.

    The decimation of blue-collar jobs is a direct result of this country's trade policies, not immigration. I again struggle with how people can be for free trade in its current forms while simultaneously raving against the hordes of immigrants that are going to take away working class jobs. News flash! Those jobs are already gone and it wasn't the immigrants who took them.
    We're not talking about illegals coming in and taking away factory jobs. We're talking about illegals coming in and putting downward wage pressure on all jobs that are open to people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Sure, there is a floor, in the form of minimum wage laws (though some illegals will work for less than that, in some cases) . But, jobs that might have paid $10 in the absence of illegal labor (say, working for a moving company or picking produce in hot weather climates) are going to see the hourly wage go down, since there is now more labor competing for the jobs.

    It's a pretty simple calculus- if you increase the supply of labor, wages go down. That benefits the business owners, of course, but it screws over poorer Americans, primarily, as they see jobs that might have formerly provided a living wage plummet down to minimum wage levels due to the availability of illegal labor. If this was the result of internal market economics, so be it. But, injecting a large pool of illegal labor into the US is inevitably going to lower living standards for the poorest members of our society.

    Your calculus is too simple. Again you keep viewing the economy as this static pie with only so much to go around. It is much more dynamic than that. The influx of immigrants will create additional demand for goods and services that creates additional jobs throughout the economy. Your overly simplified view of the labor market completely misses the impact on the demand side of the equation from immigration. Again, this is an incredibly complicated topic and I am not claiming to be an expert but I know enough to ascertain that your "simple calculus" is just that.

    Again, this country has had waves of immigrants in very large numbers compared to the existing population and the net result was a dynamic, growing economy that saw living standards increase at a very high rate. We actually NEED more immigrants to support the boomers and vastly expanding pool of old people, unless you want your effective federal tax rate to be north of 60% in the not to distant future.

    Does anyone actually have a link from a real economist that says increased immigration will decimate the working class and lead to economic armageddon? I am asking out of honest curiousity as I think the topic is much more complicated than the simplistic shift the supply curve argument that anyone who has taken Macro Econ 101 is undoubtedly familiar with

    EDIT: Modern, are you in favor of economic tariffs to protect U.S. businesses?

    Roanth on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?

    Because we actually have a legal responsibility for the former but not the latter? How do you not get this?
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him.

    Except for the all the things paid for by taxes.
    Roanth wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    I ask again, what low-education / high paying jobs are left that immigrants would steal from working class Americans? If you want to protect fast-food and other low-skill / low-pay jobs for working class Americans I guess that can be your own crusade. I would rather focus on getting poor Americans the education they need so they can, you know, get a job to pull themselves above the poverty line. Let the immigrants have those service jobs that no one wants.

    The decimation of blue-collar jobs is a direct result of this country's trade policies, not immigration. I again struggle with how people can be for free trade in its current forms while simultaneously raving against the hordes of immigrants that are going to take away working class jobs. News flash! Those jobs are already gone and it wasn't the immigrants who took them.
    We're not talking about illegals coming in and taking away factory jobs. We're talking about illegals coming in and putting downward wage pressure on all jobs that are open to people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Sure, there is a floor, in the form of minimum wage laws (though some illegals will work for less than that, in some cases) . But, jobs that might have paid $10 in the absence of illegal labor (say, working for a moving company or picking produce in hot weather climates) are going to see the hourly wage go down, since there is now more labor competing for the jobs.

    It's a pretty simple calculus- if you increase the supply of labor, wages go down. That benefits the business owners, of course, but it screws over poorer Americans, primarily, as they see jobs that might have formerly provided a living wage plummet down to minimum wage levels due to the availability of illegal labor. If this was the result of internal market economics, so be it. But, injecting a large pool of illegal labor into the US is inevitably going to lower living standards for the poorest members of our society.

    Your calculus is too simple. Again you keep viewing the economy as this static pie with only so much to go around. It is much more dynamic than that. The influx of immigrants will create additional demand for goods and services that creates additional jobs throughout the economy. Your overly simplified view of the labor market completely misses the impact on the demand side of the equation from immigration. Again, this is an incredibly complicated topic and I am not claiming to be an expert but I know enough to ascertain that your "simple calculus" is just that.

    Again, this country has had waves of immigrants in very large numbers compared to the existing population and the net result was a dynamic, growing economy that saw living standards increase at a very high rate. We actually NEED more immigrants to support the boomers and vastly expanding pool of old people, unless you want your effective federal tax rate to be north of 60% in the not to distant future.

    Does anyone actually have a link from a real economist that says increased immigration will decimate the working class and lead to economic armageddon? I am asking out of honest curiousity as I think the topic is much more complicated than the simplistic shift the supply curve argument that anyone who has taken Macro Econ 101 is undoubtedly familiar with

    EDIT: Modern, are you in favor of economic tariffs to protect U.S. businesses?

    This might be an argument if the unemployment rate was not already ridiculous.

    Immigration does not magically create jobs out of nothing. If there is demand for workers that is not being fulfilled domestically, it is obviously good economic sense to bring in immigrants to fill that gap. But letting in anyone and everyone is not going to create demand that isn't there.

    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 April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?

    Because we actually have a legal responsibility for the former but not the latter? How do you not get this?
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him.

    Except for the all the things paid for by taxes.

    Which the immigrant pays.

    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 April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    Does anyone actually have a link from a real economist that says increased immigration will decimate the working class and lead to economic armageddon? I am asking out of honest curiousity as I think the topic is much more complicated than the simplistic shift the supply curve argument that anyone who has taken Macro Econ 101 is undoubtedly familiar with

    I posted a link to a real economist talking about how fucking awesome immigration is. Here's a link to his website, see the "Labor Mobility" bit at the bottom.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?

    Because we actually have a legal responsibility for the former but not the latter? How do you not get this?
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him.

    Except for the all the things paid for by taxes.
    Roanth wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    I ask again, what low-education / high paying jobs are left that immigrants would steal from working class Americans? If you want to protect fast-food and other low-skill / low-pay jobs for working class Americans I guess that can be your own crusade. I would rather focus on getting poor Americans the education they need so they can, you know, get a job to pull themselves above the poverty line. Let the immigrants have those service jobs that no one wants.

    The decimation of blue-collar jobs is a direct result of this country's trade policies, not immigration. I again struggle with how people can be for free trade in its current forms while simultaneously raving against the hordes of immigrants that are going to take away working class jobs. News flash! Those jobs are already gone and it wasn't the immigrants who took them.
    We're not talking about illegals coming in and taking away factory jobs. We're talking about illegals coming in and putting downward wage pressure on all jobs that are open to people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Sure, there is a floor, in the form of minimum wage laws (though some illegals will work for less than that, in some cases) . But, jobs that might have paid $10 in the absence of illegal labor (say, working for a moving company or picking produce in hot weather climates) are going to see the hourly wage go down, since there is now more labor competing for the jobs.

    It's a pretty simple calculus- if you increase the supply of labor, wages go down. That benefits the business owners, of course, but it screws over poorer Americans, primarily, as they see jobs that might have formerly provided a living wage plummet down to minimum wage levels due to the availability of illegal labor. If this was the result of internal market economics, so be it. But, injecting a large pool of illegal labor into the US is inevitably going to lower living standards for the poorest members of our society.

    Your calculus is too simple. Again you keep viewing the economy as this static pie with only so much to go around. It is much more dynamic than that. The influx of immigrants will create additional demand for goods and services that creates additional jobs throughout the economy. Your overly simplified view of the labor market completely misses the impact on the demand side of the equation from immigration. Again, this is an incredibly complicated topic and I am not claiming to be an expert but I know enough to ascertain that your "simple calculus" is just that.

    Again, this country has had waves of immigrants in very large numbers compared to the existing population and the net result was a dynamic, growing economy that saw living standards increase at a very high rate. We actually NEED more immigrants to support the boomers and vastly expanding pool of old people, unless you want your effective federal tax rate to be north of 60% in the not to distant future.

    Does anyone actually have a link from a real economist that says increased immigration will decimate the working class and lead to economic armageddon? I am asking out of honest curiousity as I think the topic is much more complicated than the simplistic shift the supply curve argument that anyone who has taken Macro Econ 101 is undoubtedly familiar with

    EDIT: Modern, are you in favor of economic tariffs to protect U.S. businesses?

    This might be an argument if the unemployment rate was not already ridiculous.

    Immigration does not magically create jobs out of nothing. If there is demand for workers that is not being fulfilled domestically, it is obviously good economic sense to bring in immigrants to fill that gap. But letting in anyone and everyone is not going to create demand that isn't there.

    So why not close our borders to open trade and have everything made here? Since everything will need to be made in the U.S. that should help unemployment and fix the problem right? Anyways, I am done debating this point. People intuitivlely believe that the impact of immigration is all on the supply side while I think the answer is much more complex. Since I had a couple minutes - here is a report from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank on the topic and a couple of quotes. Covers some of the demand side aspects as well as supply side

    http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2006/d/pages/immigration.html
    The benefits from immigration stem mainly from the larger diversity of skills among foreign-born workers relative to the native work force. (For the most part, foreign-born workers have either low or high skills, whereas U.S. natives generally have intermediate skills.3 The chart illustrates these differences in terms of levels of schooling.) First, the availability of low-skilled immigrants, earning lower wages, has allowed American firms to expand and to generate new jobs, increasing the production of goods and services while keeping prices down. Second, the disproportionate influx of low-skilled foreign-born workers has also increased the real wages of more-skilled U.S.-born workers (more on this later). Third, foreign-born workers with high levels of schooling have made important scientific and technological contributions to the U.S. economy.

    On the other hand, there are many costs to rising immigration, including:

    the potentially adverse effects on the wages and employment rates of low-skilled U.S.-born workers, who face increased competition from low-skilled immigrants; and
    the increase in the consumption of publicly provided goods and services, such as public schools and health services, as well as the increased use of public assistance programs.
    Finally, it is worth noting that, although the costs and benefits from immigration are commonly measured from the perspective of the U.S.-born population, immigration clearly benefits immigrants themselves, who enjoy an improved quality of life and higher earnings.

    Roanth on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?

    Because we actually have a legal responsibility for the former but not the latter? How do you not get this?
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him.

    Except for the all the things paid for by taxes.

    Which the immigrant pays.

    Maybe.
    Roanth wrote: »
    So why not close our borders to open trade and have everything made here?

    Because that generally doesn't work.
    First, the availability of low-skilled immigrants, earning lower wages, has allowed American firms to expand and to generate new jobs, increasing the production of goods and services while keeping prices down.

    This is only true if you have already exhausted the available pool of low-skilled workers, and those workers are currently making above minimum wage.
    Third, foreign-born workers with high levels of schooling have made important scientific and technological contributions to the U.S. economy.

    Reforming the immigration process so we attract more highly skilled immigrants is by and large an entirely separate issue from illegal immigration.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?

    Because we actually have a legal responsibility for the former but not the latter? How do you not get this?
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him.

    Except for the all the things paid for by taxes.

    Which the immigrant pays.

    Maybe.
    Roanth wrote: »
    So why not close our borders to open trade and have everything made here?

    Because that generally doesn't work.
    First, the availability of low-skilled immigrants, earning lower wages, has allowed American firms to expand and to generate new jobs, increasing the production of goods and services while keeping prices down.

    This is only true if you have already exhausted the available pool of low-skilled workers, and those workers are currently making above minimum wage.
    Third, foreign-born workers with high levels of schooling have made important scientific and technological contributions to the U.S. economy.

    Reforming the immigration process so we attract more highly skilled immigrants is by and large an entirely separate issue from illegal immigration.

    If shielding our companies from foreign competition (companies that employ U.S. workers) doesn't work, why does shielding the workers themselves from foreign competition? Also, your premise that American firms can't expand and create new jobs unless the pool of low-skilled worker is "exhausted" is preposterous. I don't even know what your point is. Again, please provide something other than your anecdotal beliefs on this subject to support your position

    Roanth on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?
    Because we live in a country with a Constitution and rule of law that prevents the government from rounding up citizens and exiling them out of the country? Under what possible law would it be legal to cleanse the country of poor citizens?
    Your logic keeps going in a circle. If having poor people is bad and sending them to Mexico is the solution, it shouldn't matter where they came from, we should just send all poor people to Mexico. Otherwise, you are after all making a distinction regarding someone's legal rights based on a factor they have no control over - where they were born. If you're born here it's ok to be poor, if you weren't, it's not.
    Go back. Read what I wrote. Try and comprehend it, rather than arguing against strawmen. American citizens, whether poor or rich, have the right to live in this country and the government has no legal power to kick them out. Immigrants only have the legal right to live here so long as we decide we want them here. Illegals have no legal right to be here- they have violated our laws. The American people, through their elected representatives, have the legal power and right to decide which, if any, non-citizens can legally live here.

    Which, if any, of these statements is not true?
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him. Stop pretending like you or I are going out of our way for him, to "let" him work a tough job for shit pay
    You're proposing essentually opening the borders. So, you are essentially in favor of letting pretty much anyone into the country. When you increase the supply of labor, wages will go down. And the decrease in wages will disproportionately lower the living standards of poorer Americans.

    Which, if any, of these statements is not true?
    And I wouldn't say "I don't give a fuck" about the American who loses his job. But I would say, "labor just got even cheaper around here, that's a good time to try starting a business."
    Of course business owners are fond of increasing the labor suplly and dropping their labor costs. No one is disputing that. But, that's going to lead to a decrease in the standard of living for poorer Americans.

    Tell me- are poorer Americans worse or better off with the current 10% or so unemployment than they were when unemployment was about half that? Though the supply of labor has not gone up in the last few years, the demand for labor has gone down. Increasing the labor supply will lead to the exact same results.
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Look, I agree that poverty in this country is often a result of bad personal choices. But, I want to increase the standard of living for the American poor, to the extent possible.
    Because they are Americans, not because they are poor, correct?
    Exactly. We have no legal or moral obligation to allow people to immigrate to this country. If immigration is good for the country, I support it. But the argument that immigration should be allowed because it is good for the immigrants is wholly irrelevant. They're not my concern, nor should they be the concern of the US government.
    Yeah, this stuff is getting old. I think I've made it pretty clear that I don't believe protectionism is all that great, and that the fears of ruining the lives of Americans aren't generally well founded. It doesn't push our standard of living down to Mexico's nearly as much as it brings the standard of living for immigrants up to that of our poor. To the extent that it does depress living standards for our poor, I think that for individuals this is overcome in the not-so-long-term by the overall icnrease in standard of living from the positive economic effects.
    Except, you haven't in any way shown how lowering wages for the poorest Americans and increasing the labor pool is going to increase the standard of living for poor American citizens.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    If shielding our companies from foreign competition (companies that employ U.S. workers) doesn't work, why does shielding the workers themselves from foreign competition?

    At the very least, because restricting immigration does not result in reciprocal tariffs and trade wars.
    Also, your premise that American firms can't expand and create new jobs unless the pool of low-skilled worker is "exhausted" is preposterous. I don't even know what your point is. Again, please provide something other than your anecdotal beliefs on this subject to support your position

    Try and follow me here.

    If 10% (which I think is roughly right?) of low-skilled workers are already unemployed, and would presumably already want minimum wage jobs, how is adding more people who want those same minimum wage jobs going to make things more appealing to business in any way? Cheap labor is already available, that is not the problem.

    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 April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?
    Because we live in a country with a Constitution and rule of law that prevents the government from rounding up citizens and exiling them out of the country? Under what possible law would it be legal to cleanse the country of poor citizens?

    You should probably read the constitution. In no place does it limit rights to citizens.

    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
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    If 10% (which I think is roughly right?) of low-skilled workers are already unemployed, and would presumably already want minimum wage jobs, how is adding more people who want those same minimum wage jobs going to make things more appealing to business in any way? Cheap labor is already available, that is not the problem.
    Keep in mind, the unemployment rate for low-skilled workers tends to be higher than the unemployment rate for medium-skilled and high-skilled workers. I remember that when the general unemployment rate was around 5%, it broke down to about 3%/5%/7% across the low/medium/high-skill spectrum. So, in this economy, low-skilled worker unemployment might be pushing 15%, or higher.

    We don't have a shortage of low-skilled workers in this country. What we have are business interests who think low-skilled workers are overpaid, and would prefer to lower their wages through immigration.

    And we have, on this thread, people who are happy to go along with this and see poor Americans' standard of living drop towards Mexican levels.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    You're equivocating and begging the question again. Why do we have no obligation to kick out our own poor, but we do have an obligation to kick out poor people who aren't our own?
    Because we live in a country with a Constitution and rule of law that prevents the government from rounding up citizens and exiling them out of the country? Under what possible law would it be legal to cleanse the country of poor citizens?

    You should probably read the constitution. In no place does it limit rights to citizens.
    You should probably read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, which gives Congress the power:

    "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

    Which is interpreted to mean that regulating immigration is a power of Congress, up to and including expelling all immigrants and outlawing immigration completely.

    Or, do you think immigrants have a "right" to live in the US, regardless of laws passed by Congress?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Keep in mind, the unemployment rate for low-skilled workers tends to be higher than the unemployment rate for medium-skilled and high-skilled workers. I remember that when the general unemployment rate was around 5%, it broke down to about 3%/5%/7% across the low/medium/high-skill spectrum. So, in this economy, low-skilled worker unemployment might be pushing 15%, or higher.

    We don't have a shortage of low-skilled workers in this country. What we have are business interests who think low-skilled workers are overpaid, and would prefer to lower their wages through immigration.

    And we have, on this thread, people who are happy to go along with this and see poor Americans' standard of living drop towards Mexican levels.

    Oh shenanigans. There are ways to preserve the utility of poor people while still allowing for relaxed immigration policy.

    And unemployment wasn't caused by immigration. That is a narrative that flies directly in the face of what is actually occuring. Immigration into the United States has declined drastically, because of unemployment.

    Also, legalism, really? That is the fig leaf you are going to hide behind?

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Keep in mind, the unemployment rate for low-skilled workers tends to be higher than the unemployment rate for medium-skilled and high-skilled workers. I remember that when the general unemployment rate was around 5%, it broke down to about 3%/5%/7% across the low/medium/high-skill spectrum. So, in this economy, low-skilled worker unemployment might be pushing 15%, or higher.

    We don't have a shortage of low-skilled workers in this country. What we have are business interests who think low-skilled workers are overpaid, and would prefer to lower their wages through immigration.

    And we have, on this thread, people who are happy to go along with this and see poor Americans' standard of living drop towards Mexican levels.

    Oh shenanigans. There are ways to preserve the utility of poor people while still allowing for relaxed immigration policy.

    Such as?
    And unemployment wasn't caused by immigration. That is a narrative that flies directly in the face of what is actually occuring. Immigration into the United States has declined drastically, because of unemployment.

    Yes, and immigration policy should reflect the economic needs to the country.

    Also, if you let anyone just show up on the border and just immediately become a legal immigrant I suspect that immigration would shoot right back up.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Oh shenanigans. There are ways to preserve the utility of poor people while still allowing for relaxed immigration policy.

    Such as?

    Taxation.
    And unemployment wasn't caused by immigration. That is a narrative that flies directly in the face of what is actually occuring. Immigration into the United States has declined drastically, because of unemployment.

    Yes, and immigration policy should reflect the economic needs to the country.

    Also, if you let anyone just show up on the border and just immediately become a legal immigrant I suspect that immigration would shoot right back up.

    What 'economic needs' exactly? Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

    Should we apply this immigration debate to inter-state labor too? I mean after all, if it is detrimental that a person from a relatively lower wage country enter the US, surely that same logic holds for someone from a relatively lower wage state moving to New York. I mean, surely the state of New York has the obligation to protect its residents from the pernicious effects of low wage labor from South Dakota right? How will its poorer residents compete with the Dakotan menace?

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    What 'economic needs' exactly? Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

    Labor demand.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    What 'economic needs' exactly? Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

    Labor demand.

    How do you propose a regulatory agency determine what 'labor demand' is? Why wouldn't you just let the demand float at that point and reach equilibrium?

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Should we apply this immigration debate to inter-state labor too? I mean after all, if it is detrimental that a person from a relatively lower wage country enter the US, surely that same logic holds for someone from a relatively lower wage state moving to New York. I mean, surely the state of New York has the obligation to protect its residents from the pernicious effects of low wage labor from South Dakota right? How will its poorer residents compete with the Dakotan menace?
    We're discussing immigration, not movement within a nation by its citizens. Regulating the former to protect the living standards of citizens is perfectly legitimate, regulating the latter is a human rights and Constitutional violation.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Should we apply this immigration debate to inter-state labor too? I mean after all, if it is detrimental that a person from a relatively lower wage country enter the US, surely that same logic holds for someone from a relatively lower wage state moving to New York. I mean, surely the state of New York has the obligation to protect its residents from the pernicious effects of low wage labor from South Dakota right? How will its poorer residents compete with the Dakotan menace?
    We're discussing immigration, not movement within a nation by its citizens. Regulating the former to protect the living standards of citizens is perfectly legitimate, regulating the latter is a human rights and Constitutional violation.

    Moving to a different state is immigration. Why is inter-state prohibitions on residency a human rights violation? I mean you can always fall back on legalism via the Constitution, but that is hardly effective.

    What makes immigration on a national scale a matter of the utmost importance, whereas inter-state, inter-county or inter-city immigration is immaterial. I mean, what moral imperitive do we have to protect the living standards of citizens of the US, and not say the citizens of New York?

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    What 'economic needs' exactly? Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

    Labor demand.

    How do you propose a regulatory agency determine what 'labor demand' is? Why wouldn't you just let the demand float at that point and reach equilibrium?

    Studying the market, interacting with businesses, etc. Having business's apply for immigration permits, perhaps.
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Should we apply this immigration debate to inter-state labor too? I mean after all, if it is detrimental that a person from a relatively lower wage country enter the US, surely that same logic holds for someone from a relatively lower wage state moving to New York. I mean, surely the state of New York has the obligation to protect its residents from the pernicious effects of low wage labor from South Dakota right? How will its poorer residents compete with the Dakotan menace?
    We're discussing immigration, not movement within a nation by its citizens. Regulating the former to protect the living standards of citizens is perfectly legitimate, regulating the latter is a human rights and Constitutional violation.

    Moving to a different state is immigration. Why is inter-state prohibitions on residency a human rights violation? I mean you can always fall back on legalism via the Constitution, but that is hardly effective.

    What makes immigration on a national scale a matter of the utmost importance, whereas inter-state, inter-county or inter-city immigration is immaterial. I mean, what moral imperitive do we have to protect the living standards of citizens of the US, and not say the citizens of New York?

    New York is not a sovereign state. It is not granted the power to control movement of US citizens across it's border by the Constitution, from an immigration perspective.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Moving to a different state is immigration.
    No, it's not. Immigration requires moving to another nation as a non-native. If an American citizen living in France moves to New York City, is he an immigrant? Of course not. And neither is a US citizen who moves from NYC to Chicago.
    Why is inter-state prohibitions on residency a human rights violation? I mean you can always fall back on legalism via the Constitution, but that is hardly effective.
    The human rights violation comes from a variety of international treaties that call for the free movement of people within their home countries. There is, however, no recognized right to move to a different country. If you think such a right exists, please explain where you think it comes from.

    In addition to the issue of human rights, in the the US, at least, there is a civil right of movement around the country. The government has no legal power to prevent you from mocing from one state to another.
    What makes immigration on a national scale a matter of the utmost importance, whereas inter-state, inter-county or inter-city immigration is immaterial. I mean, what moral imperitive do we have to protect the living standards of citizens of the US, and not say the citizens of New York?
    It comes down to the right of political self-determination. The American people, as a polity, have created a governmental system tasked with protecting the rights and interests of its citizenry. That government has no legitimate power to put the interests of non-citizens over citizens.

    Furthermore, the system we have set up does not give government to power to prevent citizens from freely moving around the country. It does, however, grant that power when it comes to non-citizens (including the power to exclude non-citzens completely).

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Should we apply this immigration debate to inter-state labor too? I mean after all, if it is detrimental that a person from a relatively lower wage country enter the US, surely that same logic holds for someone from a relatively lower wage state moving to New York. I mean, surely the state of New York has the obligation to protect its residents from the pernicious effects of low wage labor from South Dakota right? How will its poorer residents compete with the Dakotan menace?
    We're discussing immigration, not movement within a nation by its citizens. Regulating the former to protect the living standards of citizens is perfectly legitimate, regulating the latter is a human rights and Constitutional violation.

    Moving to a different state is immigration. Why is inter-state prohibitions on residency a human rights violation? I mean you can always fall back on legalism via the Constitution, but that is hardly effective.

    What makes immigration on a national scale a matter of the utmost importance, whereas inter-state, inter-county or inter-city immigration is immaterial. I mean, what moral imperitive do we have to protect the living standards of citizens of the US, and not say the citizens of New York?

    The New York legislature should take into consideration policies that legally and morally improve the living standards of NY citizens. An example would be residency requirements on government provided tuition reductions (well, as a stopover. I prefer a more socialist approach to higher education, but under the current system, it is reasonable to differentiate rates between in state and out of state students)

    However, while this may come as a shock to some, most Americans believe nationality actually matters. I do. Arbitrary lines can be harmful if used improperly, but they also allow for us to build community and set parameters of what needs to be accomplished.

    programjunkie on
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    If shielding our companies from foreign competition (companies that employ U.S. workers) doesn't work, why does shielding the workers themselves from foreign competition?

    At the very least, because restricting immigration does not result in reciprocal tariffs and trade wars.
    Also, your premise that American firms can't expand and create new jobs unless the pool of low-skilled worker is "exhausted" is preposterous. I don't even know what your point is. Again, please provide something other than your anecdotal beliefs on this subject to support your position

    Try and follow me here.

    If 10% (which I think is roughly right?) of low-skilled workers are already unemployed, and would presumably already want minimum wage jobs, how is adding more people who want those same minimum wage jobs going to make things more appealing to business in any way? Cheap labor is already available, that is not the problem.

    Because the businesses that are expanding are creating more jobs, maybe even some that require skills an illegal immigrant doesn't have and provides a better opportunity for the working class? There are businesses right now that are starting up and using legal (or in some cases illegal) immigrants for the low skill portion of the operations while creating new jobs for "real" Americans. Again, you are fixated with the current low-income jobs that exist and are completely ignoring the new jobs that can be created through immigration. As I and someone else said - the economy is not a zero sum game. An immigrant getting a job doesn't mean that an American loses theirs.

    Addtionally, your 10% number isn't even correct - that is total unemployment which includes all skill levels of workers. The number also includes "voluntary" unemployment - i.e. an accountant may choose to stay unemployed even though he could get a job at McDonald's. You really need to parse the number more to determine how many low-skilled workers are unemployed that would welcome a chance to work at a fast food joint. Shockingly, even if the unemployment number is high, there still may be a shortage of workers for low-skilled / low-paying jobs as people may choose to collect benefits or not work at all vs taking these sort of jobs. In that instance, more immigration would definitely be a benefit as it would solve a labor need, help businesses expand, add more demand to the economy, and on a macro level help create more jobs. Crazy concept I know

    Roanth on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    If shielding our companies from foreign competition (companies that employ U.S. workers) doesn't work, why does shielding the workers themselves from foreign competition?

    At the very least, because restricting immigration does not result in reciprocal tariffs and trade wars.
    Also, your premise that American firms can't expand and create new jobs unless the pool of low-skilled worker is "exhausted" is preposterous. I don't even know what your point is. Again, please provide something other than your anecdotal beliefs on this subject to support your position

    Try and follow me here.

    If 10% (which I think is roughly right?) of low-skilled workers are already unemployed, and would presumably already want minimum wage jobs, how is adding more people who want those same minimum wage jobs going to make things more appealing to business in any way? Cheap labor is already available, that is not the problem.

    Because the businesses that are expanding are creating more jobs, maybe even some that require skills an illegal immigrant doesn't have and provides a better opportunity for the working class? There are businesses right now that are starting up and using legal (or in some cases illegal) immigrants for the low skill portion of the operations while creating new jobs for "real" Americans. Again, you are fixated with the current low-income jobs that exist and are completely ignoring the new jobs that can be created through immigration. As I and someone else said - the economy is not a zero sum game. An immigrant getting a job doesn't mean that an American loses theirs.

    Addtionally, your 10% number isn't even correct - that is total unemployment which includes all skill levels of workers. The number also includes "voluntary" unemployment - i.e. an accountant may choose to stay unemployed even though he could get a job at McDonald's. You really need to parse the number more to determine how many low-skilled workers are unemployed that would welcome a chance to work at a fast food joint. Shockingly, even if the unemployment number is high, there still may be a shortage of workers for low-skilled / low-paying jobs as people may choose to collect benefits or not work at all vs taking these sort of jobs. In that instance, more immigration would definitely be a benefit as it would solve a labor need, help businesses expand, add more demand to the economy, and on a macro level help create more jobs. Crazy concept I know

    Again, you are claiming that there exists an unmet demand for low-skill labor. I see nothing to support this. As Modern Man said the rate for low-skilled labor is probably higher than the overall rate. The fact that immigration has gone down is further proof that at this point demand is going down.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Roanth wrote: »
    Addtionally, your 10% number isn't even correct - that is total unemployment which includes all skill levels of workers. The number also includes "voluntary" unemployment - i.e. an accountant may choose to stay unemployed even though he could get a job at McDonald's. You really need to parse the number more to determine how many low-skilled workers are unemployed that would welcome a chance to work at a fast food joint. Shockingly, even if the unemployment number is high, there still may be a shortage of workers for low-skilled / low-paying jobs as people may choose to collect benefits or not work at all vs taking these sort of jobs. In that instance, more immigration would definitely be a benefit as it would solve a labor need, help businesses expand, add more demand to the economy, and on a macro level help create more jobs. Crazy concept I know
    Here's the breakdown of unemployment by education level:

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

    With a 15% unemployment rate for people with less than a high-school degree, it's pretty clear there is no labor shortage of low-skill workers.

    And, keep in mind, this only counts people who are still drawing unemployment benefits and doesn't count people whose benefits have run out and who might have moved on to some other form of assistance.

    Again, there is no labor shortage when it comes to low-skilled workers.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Because we actually have a legal responsibility for the former but not the latter? How do you not get this?
    You cannot use two things to justify each other, that is called circular reasoning. You cannot use citizenship status as justification for the process of citizenship status. Amnesty and/or open borders would make them all our legal responsibility. I'm asking why we shouldn't do that, and therefore your answer cannot be "because they aren't our legal responsibility." As many times as I've explained it, how can you not get it? At some point, if you think we need to spend more on border control, more on deportation, you've got to justify that. "Because we have a legal obligation" is not a justification, because then the obvious answer would be, "ok, cancel the legal obligation."

    I'm trying to get out of this loop where we justify our immigration control and naturalization process because we need protection from the immigrant poor, but then distinguish them from other poor people because of our immigration control and naturalization process. As I said, that is circular. In the end, you're saying that they should be illegal because they are illegal. That doesn't do it for me.
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    No, the illegal immigrant is increasing his own standard of living. No one is doing it for him.

    Except for the all the things paid for by taxes.
    So your problem is with your tax money going to someone who you don't actually owe that money to or who didn't earn it. You despise the welfare state and redistribution of wealth. No sweat. That isn't directly about immigration though, and only slightly relates to it. Why is it ok for tax money to go to an American-born poor person? Don't go in the circle again - remember, you're saying that the reason we don't want them to be citizens is because we don't want our taxes going to poor people - so you can't then say "because they are citizens" when I ask you to justify why taxes go to other poor people.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Because we live in a country with a Constitution and rule of law that prevents the government from rounding up citizens and exiling them out of the country? Under what possible law would it be legal to cleanse the country of poor citizens?
    Again, you are justifying legal status quo by virtue of the fact that it is legal status quo. That is not a justification. You can't argue that they are illegal because they are illegal. You cannot argue that it's the law because it's the law. You can't argue that the justification for citizenship is because they are citizens.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    American citizens, whether poor or rich, have the right to live in this country and the government has no legal power to kick them out. Immigrants only have the legal right to live here so long as we decide we want them here. Illegals have no legal right to be here- they have violated our laws. The American people, through their elected representatives, have the legal power and right to decide which, if any, non-citizens can legally live here.

    Which, if any, of these statements is not true?
    They are all true and you fail to ever justify the current status of any of them within this discussion other than to use circular reasoning and fall back on the status quo as justification for the status quo.

    Yes, we have the legal power to decide which can legally live here. Which includes the power to say that they all can legally live here, if we wanted to. Or, maybe not all, but a lot more than we allow now, whatever. Why don't we want to do that? Can you answer this without eventually coming back to, "because we have the right to decide who can legally live here"? Can you see why that isn't a successful answer to the question? The government's power to decide is not a logical justification for the decision it makes. It's insane that I'm still trying to get this across.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    You're proposing essentually opening the borders.
    As a response to people who claim that their primary concern is just illegal immigration. Open borders would eliminate illegal immigration. It's a rhetorical point that should silence an ignorant argument. It isn't necessarily my ideal solution.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    When you increase the supply of labor, wages will go down. And the decrease in wages will disproportionately lower the living standards of poorer Americans.

    Which, if any, of these statements is not true?
    Short-term, wages of unskilled native-born Americans go down. Not so clear if their living standards go down, lots has been posted here regarding all the positive effects. As Roanth said, it's a complicated issue to dissect theoretically, but history shows that huge waves of immigration that even dwarf the current one have not been met with disastrous effects on living conditions.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Of course business owners are fond of increasing the labor suplly and dropping their labor costs. No one is disputing that. But, that's going to lead to a decrease in the standard of living for poorer Americans.
    I guess you missed what I was saying. "Business owner" is not a race of people, not some kind of exclusive elite of genetic mutants. If you just lost your dirt-shoveling job to a Mexican immigrant, why not try starting your own dirt-hauling business? There are cheap immigrants around you could hire. This is just one simple example of why your "immgration = lower standard of living" is inaccurately one-sided and over-simplified.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    Because they are Americans, not because they are poor, correct?
    Exactly. We have no legal or moral obligation to allow people to immigrate to this country.
    But if we legislated open borders, we would have that legal obligation, correct? So you cannot use this argument - that we don't have a legal obligation - as a reason why we shouldn't have the legal obligation. Logic fail.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    If immigration is good for the country, I support it. But the argument that immigration should be allowed because it is good for the immigrants is wholly irrelevant. They're not my concern, nor should they be the concern of the US government.
    Oh, well, immigration is good for the country. But who do you include in "the country"? Even if you include only native-born, as a whole they get a net benefit to the economy and to tax revenues. However, as my point has been all along, "the country" has always included immigrants. How many is the question, and you keep wanting to answer that question in terms of who is or isn't already a citizen. That isn't an answer.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Except, you haven't in any way shown how lowering wages for the poorest Americans and increasing the labor pool is going to increase the standard of living for poor American citizens.
    Cheaper goods and services? Lower cost of starting a business (one of the best ways out of poverty)?
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Which is interpreted to mean that regulating immigration is a power of Congress, up to and including expelling all immigrants and outlawing immigration completely.
    Up to and including open borders. This Constitutional power supports both sides of the argument equally, and therefore is meaningless in the discussion. That has been a central point of my argument all along.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Regulating the former to protect the living standards of citizens is perfectly legitimate, regulating the latter is a human rights and Constitutional violation.
    The entire point of Sammiel's statement was an attempt to get you to justify what you jsut said, and instead you just said it again. WHY, for god's sake, is it "perfectly legitimate" for a country to do it but not a state, when all reasoning applies equally in both cases?
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    New York is not a sovereign state. It is not granted the power to control movement of US citizens across it's border by the Constitution, from an immigration perspective.
    At some point you guys will understand that we are asking you to justify why this is how it should be, instead of just repeating it over and over as if it justified itself.

    Yar on
  • Options
    RoanthRoanth Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Roanth wrote: »
    Addtionally, your 10% number isn't even correct - that is total unemployment which includes all skill levels of workers. The number also includes "voluntary" unemployment - i.e. an accountant may choose to stay unemployed even though he could get a job at McDonald's. You really need to parse the number more to determine how many low-skilled workers are unemployed that would welcome a chance to work at a fast food joint. Shockingly, even if the unemployment number is high, there still may be a shortage of workers for low-skilled / low-paying jobs as people may choose to collect benefits or not work at all vs taking these sort of jobs. In that instance, more immigration would definitely be a benefit as it would solve a labor need, help businesses expand, add more demand to the economy, and on a macro level help create more jobs. Crazy concept I know
    Here's the breakdown of unemployment by education level:

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

    With a 15% unemployment rate for people with less than a high-school degree, it's pretty clear there is no labor shortage of low-skill workers.

    And, keep in mind, this only counts people who are still drawing unemployment benefits and doesn't count people whose benefits have run out and who might have moved on to some other form of assistance.

    Again, there is no labor shortage when it comes to low-skilled workers.

    Fair enough. What would be an acceptable rate of low-skilled unemployment before you would let in more immigrants out of curiousity?

    Roanth on
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I'm trying to get out of this loop where we justify our immigration control and naturalization process because we need protection from the immigrant poor, but then distinguish them from other poor people because of our immigration control and naturalization process. As I said, that is circular. In the end, you're saying that they should be illegal because they are illegal. That doesn't do it for me.

    There is nothing circular here. There is a clear delineation between someone who is an American citizen, and someone who is not. You seem to be arguing at this point that there should be no delineation. In other words, you are arguing against the idea of nationality and nations itself. Which is not only silly, but beyond the scope of this thread.
    So your problem is with your tax money going to someone who you don't actually owe that money to or who didn't earn it. You despise the welfare state and redistribution of wealth. No sweat. That isn't directly about immigration though, and only slightly relates to it. Why is it ok for tax money to go to an American-born poor person? Don't go in the circle again - remember, you're saying that the reason we don't want them to be citizens is because we don't want our taxes going to poor people - so you can't then say "because they are citizens" when I ask you to justify why taxes go to other poor people.

    Our entitlements and infrastructure are seriously over-stretched as is. A huge influx of people who can't find jobs (because again, 15% unemployment, and that would only go up under your plan) is not a good idea.
    Roanth wrote: »
    Fair enough. What would be an acceptable rate of low-skilled unemployment before you would let in more immigrants out of curiousity?

    A couple points within the base rate (I think it has a more technical term, but the rate that represents just people moving temporarily from job to job).

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    What 'economic needs' exactly? Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

    Labor demand.

    How do you propose a regulatory agency determine what 'labor demand' is? Why wouldn't you just let the demand float at that point and reach equilibrium?

    Studying the market, interacting with businesses, etc. Having business's apply for immigration permits, perhaps.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    I'm trying to get out of this loop where we justify our immigration control and naturalization process because we need protection from the immigrant poor, but then distinguish them from other poor people because of our immigration control and naturalization process. As I said, that is circular. In the end, you're saying that they should be illegal because they are illegal. That doesn't do it for me.

    There is nothing circular here. There is a clear delineation between someone who is an American citizen, and someone who is not. You seem to be arguing at this point that there should be no delineation. In other words, you are arguing against the idea of nationality and nations itself. Which is not only silly, but beyond the scope of this thread.

    America didn't have immigration laws until the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. You apparently believe that "American" was meaningless and "The United States" described nothing in particular until we realized that we wanted to codify our dislike of the Chinese in law.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    In other words, saying that illegals take jobs nobody wants is not a valid argument if the reason nobody wants said jobs is that an illegal labor supply has placed them beyond the bounds of practicality.
    That makes no sense. Immigrants wouldn't be running through the desert to get these jobs if they weren't practical for anyone to have them.

    Just because someone is willing to work under Condition X doesn't mean we should let them. There are probably lots of people in sub-Saharan Africa who would be willing to work under the same conditions as an American slave in 1855 Alabama, to whom 3 meals and a roof is worth the whippings and beatings. If we look at the jobs immigrants are running to as acceptable, we might as well repeal every single labor law on the books and just have it out in a massive job market free-for-all.

    Conditions illegal immigrants are willing to work under, because they're better than Mexico, include being fired or subjected to retaliation for:
    - requesting compensation for working overtime.
    - requesting the hourly compensation they were promised.
    - requesting to be paid with a valid, non-bouncing check.
    - requesting compensation at all.
    - requesting to not be sprayed with pesticide and other toxic chemicals on the job.
    - reporting a workplace injury.
    - asking for a raise.
    - trying to organize.
    - reporting unsanitary work conditions and hygienic facilities.
    - requesting that hygienic facilities be provided at all.
    - resisting a superior's sexual advances.
    - seeking medical care for injuries sustained on the job.
    - taking pregnancy, or other forms of family medical, leave.
    - not wanting to operate unsafe and/or illegal machinery.
    - not buying/renting work-required equipment from the company store.
    - complaining about the use of child labor.
    - taking a lunch break.

    How does increasing the number of people willing to work under these shitty conditions help? The more available workers willing to accept these conditions the more employers will hire, driven by simple profit motive. Workers not willing to accept those conditions will be driven out of the industry.

    You could just say "Well, just enforce the labor laws." Unfortunately that's about as realistic as "Just enforce the immigration laws." Law enforcement simply lacks the required manpower for adequate enforcement, and recently the political will as well. The last decade was basically a corporate free-for-all in terms of getting away with labor violations, and the SCOTUS interpretation of corporations as people will likely increase their political influence moving forward.

    Even today the Labor Dept largely relies on complaints from worker themselves to identify which companies are committing violations. But if an immigrant is thankful for those job conditions because they're better than what's in the old country, why would he complain at all? Exploited workers already don't complain out of fear for their jobs (as well as fear of law enforcement, which is present in poor minority communities both legal and illegal), how will increasing competition for those jobs increase the likelihood of whistle-blowing?

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Even today the Labor Dept largely relies on complaints from worker themselves to identify which companies are committing violations. But if an immigrant is thankful for those job conditions because they're better than what's in the old country, why would he complain at all? Exploited workers already don't complain out of fear for their jobs (as well as fear of law enforcement, which is present in poor minority communities both legal and illegal), how will increasing competition for those jobs increase the likelihood of whistle-blowing?

    If someone goes from being a 7th class person to a 3rd class citizen, would you view that as a bad thing, or a good thing?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Saammiel wrote: »
    What 'economic needs' exactly? Wealth creation is not a zero-sum game.

    Labor demand.

    How do you propose a regulatory agency determine what 'labor demand' is? Why wouldn't you just let the demand float at that point and reach equilibrium?

    Studying the market, interacting with businesses, etc. Having business's apply for immigration permits, perhaps.

    Because if someone decides it's better to be poor and unemployed in the US than Mexico, it's not in our interest to let them.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    TechBoyTechBoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    Even today the Labor Dept largely relies on complaints from worker themselves to identify which companies are committing violations. But if an immigrant is thankful for those job conditions because they're better than what's in the old country, why would he complain at all? Exploited workers already don't complain out of fear for their jobs (as well as fear of law enforcement, which is present in poor minority communities both legal and illegal), how will increasing competition for those jobs increase the likelihood of whistle-blowing?

    I would argue that it is that very fear of contacting authorities that makes illegal immigrants tolerate work place abuse.

    Nobody likes being abused, but if contacting the authorities means likely getting arrested and deported back to much, much worse conditions, then from that perspective workplace abuse is something you have to tolerate.

    TechBoy on
    tf2_sig.png
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »

    We wouldn't. There would be some middle ground... but ideally the economic factors at work, over a not-very-long-term, would enable those poor to do the only thing that really gets them out of pverty - start their own businesses, learn new trades, etc. How often does a drywall guy, displaced by cheap Mexican labor, finally put his American know-how to use and start his own drywall business using cheap Mexican labor? The availability of cheap labor at the bottom opens up all kind of opportunities.

    Really? The guy living paycheck to paycheck, with no education, is going to open his own drywall business now that cheap mexican labor has driven him out of the job market. HOW? Do you think he knows the first thing about forming a corporation? Moreover given the current state of affairs there is very little market for his business. You cannot just handwave away issues like the economy being in the toilet, and declare everything will be fine because relieved of their shitty dead end job Americans will use their "know how" to suddenly become business owners.

    I like this. One, because you're acknowledging that it is essentially a birthright thing. But two, because you seem to believe in a very libertarian social-contract theory of government. Obey the laws and you get the protection of the laws. Exactly. Excepting the circular trivial argument of "but they're illegal!"... that is to say, if we had open borders, then anyone coming here willing to obey our laws and contribute to our society ought to enjoy equal protection under those laws. That's all there ought to be to "being American." That's what the past 300 years ought to have taught us.

    Except we have no reason to import any more labor. We have a labor surplus. Why give jobs to people who have no business being here, over people who were born here? If we have two workers, with equal skills, who will work equal hours for equal pay why hire a criminal over the non criminal? What does illiterate labor, that speaks a different language than you, and has already violated the law offer you over the other guy? Oh that is right he is going to work longer hours, for less pay.

    Why are people in prisons? Because they were convicted of a crime, if we remove all crimes from the books no crimes will happen and we can let all the prisoners out.

    Wrap your brain around it, what you are proposing would be very, very bad. Ignores quite a few economic realities, and would be very detrimental to not only the US economy, but the world economy.



    If it is so desirable and easy to live without documentation, how come only the illegal immigrants do it? It should be taken for granted that easier naturalization would mean less uninsured drivers with phony ID.

    Risk vs Reward. Do you need the obvious explanation of why someone who does not exist in our systems AT ALL can get away with this much easier than someone with a valid birth certificate and likely fingerprints on file?
    This is phantom fear-mongering. This is like saying that if we don't stop all imports of goods, then all of our domestic businesses will go under and we'll all be unemployed. It's easy enough to preach fear and protectionism this way, but somehow the opposite tends to be what really happens. When someone is willing to contribute the same to an economy but take less from it, that is by default a good thing for the economy.

    No its reality, stopping all imports of goods is also bad. You are hand waving reality because it conflicts with how you think things should work. Take a couple basic economics classes and get back to us. You do realize that if someone is willing to contribute the same but take less from it, everyone else has to also take less to compete. Which is exactly what the phantom fear mongering you hand waved away is all about.

    At this point this thread is more about teaching you basic economics, and hoping some of it sinks it than it is about immigration. You never answered my question on why I, or any American should support a politician, or a policy that would make the lives of Americas poor even worse. Why do we want to do that?

    Detharin on
Sign In or Register to comment.