Options

[immigration] and Human Rights

145791036

Posts

  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    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.
    Actually, I can. They are illegal because the people of the United States have exercised their sovereign power to declare them so. That's all the justification required. You might not agree with their decision, but unless you can get the people to change the law No. One. Gives. A. Shit.

    You are the one proposing a change in a law passed through the democratic process. The onus is on you to show why your opinion is superior to that of the polity. Have at it. But arguing that the people of the United States need to justify their political decisions to you is arrogance of the highes order.
    Yar wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    I've told you maybe half a dozen times what the decision to limit immigration is based on and I've shown you the legal basis for passing such law. What more do you need until you get it?
    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.
    Utter sophistry. And making killing someone else legal would mean we had no more murders. But, that wouldn't solve the problems that arise from people killing one another.

    Again, I've explained to you half a dozen times the problems arising from letting poor, uneducated immigrants into the country. Making those poor, uneducated people legal wouldn't make those problems go away. It would just compound them as more people crossed the border.
    Yar wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    So, the only thing keeping people with few or no skills from improving themselves is the fact that they're not unemployed?

    We don't have a shortage of unskilled labor in this country, so there's no hurdle to anyone who needs to start a business employing such people. Your argument makes no sense.
    Yar wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    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.
    Your comment is so face palmingly stupid, I don't even know how to respond.

    Yar wrote: »
    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?
    Because, per our Constitution, the States simply do not have that power. They are explicitly forbidden from doing so. Why is this so hard to understand?
    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.
    Because the people, in an act of political self-determination, have decided to set up their government in a certain way.

    Don't like it? Too fucking bad for you. You're not a special snowflake who has the right to demand justification for their decisions.

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

  • Options
    nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    the people, in an act of political self-determination, have decided to set up their government in a certain way.

    Don't like it? Too fucking bad for you. You're not a special snowflake who has the right to demand justification for their decisions.

    Justifying decisions is a dick move that only silly geese who think they're special snowflakes would contemplate, eh?

    This is particularly insane because the people whose self determination you cite are the same people who you claim do not have "the right to demand justification for their [own] decisions"

    nescientist on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast 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.

    Your link talked about how fucking awesome immigration was for everyone except the people living in the country being immigrated to.

    But that kind of thinking is pretty standard for threads like this since most pro-"Open Border" arguments rely on the complete absence of the concept of national sovereignty.

    shryke on
  • Options
    legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    Your link talked about how fucking awesome immigration was for everyone except the people living in the country being immigrated to.

    But that kind of thinking is pretty standard for threads like this since most pro-"Open Border" arguments rely on the complete absence of the concept of national sovereignty.

    Or facts, for that matter.

    legionofone on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D 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?

    Not that simple. For him, its better. For everyone else involved, its a good deal worse. The people competing for legal jobs get fucked over. His boss's business competitors get fucked over, because they now have higher labor costs. Unchecked, this sort of thing goes to very bad places.

    There are plenty of businesses in the US that would use slave labor if we let them get away with it.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    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.

    Your link talked about how fucking awesome immigration was for everyone except the people living in the country being immigrated to.

    But that kind of thinking is pretty standard for threads like this since most pro-"Open Border" arguments rely on the complete absence of the concept of national sovereignty.

    Reading the powerpoints, some of these are based on really shaky logic. Maybe its just because they're outlines, but "Is Migration good for development" is going "Hey, the US pays higher wages, just move everyone here instead of developing other countries!"

    ...the US with the entirety of the world's poor packed into it would have some pretty shitty wages, I think.

    Phoenix-D on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    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.
    How do you measure how stretched these programs are? More importantly, how do you reconcile the above statement and your views on immigrations in light of the many studies showing that immigrants are a net positive on the Treasury? Or the Israeli study (along with many others) showing that more poor/low-skilled immigrants actually equals less tax burden and social program benefits. They would help this problem, not worsen it. Or other studies, which show for example that a simple wage tax would be more effective than immigration enforcement in addressing any supposed effect illegals have on welfare, and that enforcement actually helps foreign countries by returning them their economic capital (workers).

    We did two things in 1996: disqualified illegals from all welfare, and started issuing illegals a tax ID. 2/3 of them pay SS, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and Federal Income taxes, with no access to the benefits, and, perhaps more philosophically important, no representation in our government. Just think about it - who's going to try harder to exclude people based on citizenship status: the guys collecting taxes, or the guys handing out benefits? Heck, even legal immigrants aren't allowed any welfare for at least three years. And still we've got politicians trying to criminalize even private charity for an illegal alien who needs it. WTF is wrong with people?

    Yar on
  • Options
    surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar those links are sweet. I love immigration and now I know why!

    Damn illegals coming over here and payin' mah taxes :<

    surrealitycheck on
    obF2Wuw.png
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    the people, in an act of political self-determination, have decided to set up their government in a certain way.

    Don't like it? Too fucking bad for you. You're not a special snowflake who has the right to demand justification for their decisions.

    Justifying decisions is a dick move that only silly geese who think they're special snowflakes would contemplate, eh?

    This is particularly insane because the people whose self determination you cite are the same people who you claim do not have "the right to demand justification for their [own] decisions"
    I've already listed the various reasons why illegal immigration is unpopular. At the end of the day, it can basically be distilled down to the fact that people don't like the various social pathologies that come along with any poor, uneducated population group moving into the country. Yes, yes, we have our own group of poor and uneducated citizens who exhibit the same social pathologies. But, it should be clear to anyone who isn't a blithering idiot that the problems of our domestic underclass are an American problem that we need to deal with in the context of the Constitutional rights held by such people (meaning, deportation is not possible). However, the problems of an immigrant underclass can be dealt with legally by simply deporting illegals and enacting better border controls. We don't need to justify our laws on immigration and deportation to immigrants- they simply do not have any right to question our decisions in that regard as they are not part of our polity and can only come to this country to the extend we allow them to.

    If we decide down the road that we need more agricultural workers or whatever because there is a shortage of unskilled labor (which is not the case now- we have a glut of such labor), we can enact guest worker programs or the like and manage the program to make sure that (a) we minimize social problems and (b) we don't kick the legs out from under our poorest citizens and drop their standard of living down to poor Mexican levels. But the argument that opening our borders will lead to an economic boom will never get any traction for the reasons I listed above.

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

  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I've already listed the various reasons why illegal immigration is unpopular. At the end of the day, it can basically be distilled down to the fact that people don't like the various social pathologies that come along with any poor, uneducated population group moving into the country. Yes, yes, we have our own group of poor and uneducated citizens who exhibit the same social pathologies. But, it should be clear to anyone who isn't a blithering idiot that the problems of our domestic underclass are an American problem that we need to deal with in the context of the Constitutional rights held by such people (meaning, deportation is not possible). However, the problems of an immigrant underclass can be dealt with legally by simply deporting illegals and enacting better border controls. We don't need to justify our laws on immigration and deportation to immigrants- they simply do not have any right to question our decisions in that regard as they are not part of our polity and can only come to this country to the extend we allow them to.

    So now you've devolved to a more sugar coated version of 'we don't like these degenerate plebians, but the Constitution says we can't just get rid of all ours, empirical support for their contribution to the economy be damned'. Pretty powerful argument there.

    And you didn't even say that immigrants couldn't question our laws (which they can anyhow, it is an absurd claim), you said no one could.
    If we decide down the road that we need more agricultural workers or whatever because there is a shortage of unskilled labor (which is not the case now- we have a glut of such labor), we can enact guest worker programs or the like and manage the program to make sure that (a) we minimize social problems and (b) we don't kick the legs out from under our poorest citizens and drop their standard of living down to poor Mexican levels. But the argument that opening our borders will lead to an economic boom will never get any traction for the reasons I listed above.

    We have a glut of such labor because we are in the midst of a recession, not because of some inherent chronic labor shortage present in the United States. Traditionally our unemployment levels are very low.

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    More importantly, how do you reconcile the above statement and your views on immigrations in light of the many studies showing that immigrants are a net positive on the Treasury?

    Your data addresses legal immigration almost exclusively, meaning that any data regarding job losses to illegal labor isn't posted. This alone would nullify any decent point you were attempting to make.

    But your reports also mention that even legal immigration is hurting income leverage for lower-skilled job markets, as well as highlighting that the only major markets seeing massive influxes of legal immigrant hires are the extremely low-skilled fields like manufacturing and low-level service industry.

    I do not care for the assertions you are trying to make, nor the data you are twisting or ignoring to prove them.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Saammiel wrote: »
    So now you've devolved to a more sugar coated version of 'we don't like these degenerate plebians, but the Constitution says we can't just get rid of all ours, empirical support for their contribution to the economy be damned'. Pretty powerful argument there.
    I'm not the one who suggested kicking out our own poor. I fully agree with the notion that American citizens, no matter how poor and dysfunctional, have the same right to live in this country as Bill Gates. I was pointing out that there are legal and moral reasons why you can't kick out your own citizens, but those protections do not apply to non-citizens since (a) they do not have the same legal rights to live in the country and (b) we do not have any moral obligation to allow non-citizens to live in our country.
    We have a glut of such labor because we are in the midst of a recession, not because of some inherent chronic labor shortage present in the United States. Traditionally our unemployment levels are very low.
    The unemployment rate for unskilled workers always runs above the national average by about 50%. So, even when the general unemployment rate was about 5%, the rate for unskilled labor was about 7.5%. As mentioned above, that might be a situation where we need to look at guestworker programs. But, such a low level of unemployment is pretty uncommon. Other than during the height of an economic boom, we don't have an unskilled labor shortage.

    In any event, unskilled labor shortage or not, allowing unlimited immigration or ignoring illegal immigration is not the answer.

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

  • Options
    BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    TechBoy wrote: »
    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.

    That same fear of law enforcement is also present in communities of poor citizens, such as inner-city black neighborhoods. The whole "Stop Snitching" campaign originated in black neighborhoods made up of US citizens, not illegal immigrants. The same reluctance to involve law enforcement was also found in Italian communities, also composed of legal residents and citizens, during the heyday of the mafia. It was also present in Chinese communities on the West Coast.

    I think it's more of a class thing with some race thrown in than a deportation thing, although the added fear of deportation probably makes illegal immigrants even less willing to involve authorities. But simply granting illegal immigrants amnesty/citizenship won't have them burning up law enforcement hotlines, any more than every drug dealer on the corner gets reported to police.

    Heck, even in the white collar offices of corporate America there's a reluctance to involve law enforcement. How many various cases of corporate fraud have we seen in the past few years, involving tons of people who knew something fishy was going on yet still didn't contact the SEC?

    From Ken Lay to the immigrant sweatshop worker, we see a reluctance to whistle-blow because the would-be whistle-blower believes their current situation is better than what would result from involving law enforcement, albeit on vastly different scales. Lay was happy to be making off with millions of dollars, and the immigrant sweatshop worker is happy to have a job that's better than in Mexico.

    I agree that nobody likes being abused, but what American society considers abusive might not be what immigrants consider so. The abuses heaped upon a migrant farm worker in central California pale in comparison to children in bonded labor in India.

    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?

    I think a certain society-wide standard is necessary, in the form of labor laws. If those laws say a 2nd-level worker is the worst society can tolerate, then a 3rd-level worker is unacceptable, even if someone is willing to work under those conditions. There was a time when employers were able to find 10 year olds willing to spend 15 hours a day sticking their hands into printing presses. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    Going from 7th to 3rd is probably a good thing for that person, in the short-term. I think it's bad for society as a whole in the long-term, if that society believes that 2nd is the lowest it can tolerate. There may be studies that say illegal immigration, as currently practiced, helps more than it hurts. But right now illegal immigration is still at least partially restricted, by a combination of law enforcement, the physically taxing nature of border crossing, and the large sums of money needed to pay immigrant-smugglers.

    I don't know that the current cost/benefit ratio would remain if the gates were to be swung completely open. It's possible a much larger influx of 7th-level workers would create a much stronger downward pull than currently exists, so that what once was 7->3 becomes 7->4, then 7->5, and so on. If you're computing the average of a set of numbers from 1 to 7, the more 7s you add to that set the closer the average will move towards 7.

    BubbaT on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Your data addresses legal immigration almost exclusively, meaning that any data regarding job losses to illegal labor isn't posted. This alone would nullify any decent point you were attempting to make.
    Your statement is blatantly false. Despite the point that I've already beaten into the ground, that illegal vs. legal is an arbitrary meaningless distinction, the above study nevertheless looks only at illegal immigration.
    But your reports also mention that even legal immigration is hurting income leverage for lower-skilled job markets, as well as highlighting that the only major markets seeing massive influxes of legal immigrant hires are the extremely low-skilled fields like manufacturing and low-level service industry.

    I do not care for the assertions you are trying to make, nor the data you are twisting or ignoring to prove them.
    I'm not twisting anything. I've always admitted that, at least in the sort term, some studies show a net negative effect on the wages of our least skilled workers, despite an overall positive effect on wages and the many other positive economic effects for everyone like lower cost of business ownership and lower cost of goods. But you are free to "not care" for hard data in lieu of xenophobia and comfortably bigoted assumptions.

    Yar on
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    But you are free to "not care" for hard data in lieu of xenophobia and comfortably bigoted assumptions.


    The fact that at every turn, when pressed, you resort to warrantless visceral and crude emotional pandering tells me exactly what I need to know about the conviction and strength of your argument.


    Good day to you, sir.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    [
    Your statement is blatantly false. Despite the point that I've already beaten into the ground, that illegal vs. legal is an arbitrary meaningless distinction, the above study nevertheless looks only at illegal immigration.

    If by beaten into the ground you mean completely ignored in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is a distinction, and that it matters. Even the first article you linked makes that distinction, and here is the really important part you are not going to like,

    The article you linked states that UNDOCUMENTED workers are a boon on the economy because they pay taxes, buy goods, and use almost no government services for fear of being deported. What is great here is this article makes a great case for keeping UNDOCUMENTED workers UNDOCUMENTED. Because if we turn them from illegal immigrants, foreign invaders, migrant labor, etc, into documented workers they then cost us more because then they are able to use and access more government services, while not paying more into the system.

    The article makes the argument that the current tax system is unfair to illegals, in our favor, ergo turning around and adding open immigration would be bad for us because we are better off, financially, leaving illegal immigrant workers working illegally.

    This of course ignores the crime, and other negative consequences of illegal immigration which is also ignored by the article. Of course how do you quantify a home invasion where the home owners are beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered. Where does that go on a balance sheet?

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    [
    Your statement is blatantly false. Despite the point that I've already beaten into the ground, that illegal vs. legal is an arbitrary meaningless distinction, the above study nevertheless looks only at illegal immigration.

    If by beaten into the ground you mean completely ignored in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is a distinction, and that it matters. Even the first article you linked makes that distinction, and here is the really important part you are not going to like,

    The article you linked states that UNDOCUMENTED workers are a boon on the economy because they pay taxes, buy goods, and use almost no government services for fear of being deported. What is great here is this article makes a great case for keeping UNDOCUMENTED workers UNDOCUMENTED. Because if we turn them from illegal immigrants, foreign invaders, migrant labor, etc, into documented workers they then cost us more because then they are able to use and access more government services, while not paying more into the system.

    The article makes the argument that the current tax system is unfair to illegals, in our favor, ergo turning around and adding open immigration would be bad for us because we are better off, financially, leaving illegal immigrant workers working illegally.

    This of course ignores the crime, and other negative consequences of illegal immigration which is also ignored by the article. Of course how do you quantify a home invasion where the home owners are beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered. Where does that go on a balance sheet?

    Can you show any evidence that immigration increases crime? No? Didn't think so.

    Also, you should probably look at the Israeli study posted, which shows that we see the same benefits from legal immigrants.

    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
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Can you show any evidence that immigration increases crime? No? Didn't think so.

    I can show a direct correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. Because every illegal immigrant commits at least one crime by being here. How can you say illegal immigrants do not causes increase in crime, when by definition they are criminals?
    Also, you should probably look at the Israeli study posted, which shows that we see the same benefits from legal immigrants.

    Conditions in Isreal are quiet a bit different than they are here, unless you want to argue that volume of government services and opportunities to legal immigrants are the same in Israel as they are in the US. I am addressing a study previously linked that the Isreal study directly contradicts considering the whole point of the study was that illegal immigrants provide a disproportionate gain to the economy due to paying taxes and not receiving government services. Notice that study makes a distinction between documented and undocumented workers.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Can you show any evidence that immigration increases crime? No? Didn't think so.

    I can show a direct correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. Because every illegal immigrant commits at least one crime by being here. How can you say illegal immigrants do not causes increase in crime, when by definition they are criminals?
    Also, you should probably look at the Israeli study posted, which shows that we see the same benefits from legal immigrants.

    Conditions in Isreal are quiet a bit different than they are here, unless you want to argue that volume of government services and opportunities to legal immigrants are the same in Israel as they are in the US. I am addressing a study previously linked that the Isreal study directly contradicts considering the whole point of the study was that illegal immigrants provide a disproportionate gain to the economy due to paying taxes and not receiving government services. Notice that study makes a distinction between documented and undocumented workers.

    Yes, one nonviolent crime compared to the dozens of times each American breaks the speed limit. That's just the same as "beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered," although I guess that means you support universal amnesty, as that would, obviously, cause the crime rate to plummet.

    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
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Yes, one nonviolent crime compared to the dozens of times each American breaks the speed limit. That's just the same as "beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered," although I guess that means you support universal amnesty, as that would, obviously, cause the crime rate to plummet.

    At least one crime, possibly more. Deciding "Well if we stop making it a crime the crime rate will go down" is pretty asinine, and has been discussed to death already.

    So if you accept that illegal immigrants do in fact increase crimes, and that studies show keeping them as illegal immigrants benefits us financially if we consider the crimes budget neutral because they use less government services, what exactly are we disagreeing on?

    Detharin on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh and that second link of yours about how immigrants do no reduce wages, you might actually want to read it.

    Immigration, Jobs, and the American Economy Email Printer-Friendly
    Greg Anrig, Tova Andrea Wang, The Century Foundation, 9/29/2004
    Download in PDF format

    President Bush’s proposal in January 2004 to reform the U.S. immigration system reignited a debate that had been dormant in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Virtually everyone agrees that today’s system, which has allowed an estimated 10 million foreigners to remain in the United States illegally, [1] is deeply flawed. But beyond that narrow consensus, debate rages. The central dispute is between those who believe that fixing the problems will require some new policy for enabling those already here illegally to become part of the mainstream, versus those who oppose any form of forgiveness for individuals who violated the law. Secondary disagreements focus on the extent to which legal immigration should be encouraged, on who should receive preference for admission into the United States, and on how to repair the severe flaws in the ways in which the system is administered.

    Today, as in the past, much of the debate over immigration reform is steeped in competing claims about the economic impact of legal and illegal immigrants. To what extent do immigrants take jobs from Americans? How much, if at all, do they reduce the wages of natives? Do they cost the Treasury more through the support they receive from public safety net programs than they contribute in taxes? To what degree does the work they perform contribute to the overall economy?

    Advocates on opposing sides of the immigration debate are well armed with statistics responding to such questions. Each side’s numbers in isolation can seem entirely persuasive to a neutral reader. But when pitted against each other, the contradictory statistics can be utterly bewildering. The extensive research conducted about the economic impact of immigrants is complex—and much of it has shortcomings.

    DO IMMIGRANTS REDUCE THE WAGES OF U.S. CITIZENS?

    Since the 1990s, many academic studies have attempted to assess the extent to which immigration affects the earnings of U.S. workers. Although the findings of those studies vary widely—some discern no impact whatsoever while others conclude that immigration dramatically hurts natives—a consensus has begun to emerge that the truth lies somewhere in between. It appears increasingly likely that immigration has somewhat reduced the wages of native-born workers, with less-skilled and less-educated individuals experiencing the most significant declines.

    The most extensive study of this subject released to date is an August 2003 report by Pia M. Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny, researchers at the Federal Reserve Banks of Dallas and Atlanta, respectively. [2] Their conclusions:

    * For service-related and professional workers, immigration has had little impact on wages. If anything, increases in the number of newly arriving immigrants actually have slightly positive effects.

    * For manual laborers, increases in the share of newly arrived immigrants have no statistically significant negative impact on wages; but increases in the share of immigrants who adjust their immigration status after they have been in the United States—for example, from student or tourist visas (which do not permit employment) to green cards—have a small negative effect.

    * The annual wages of low-skilled native workers are about 2.4 percent below where they would be otherwise as a result of the presence of immigrant workers.

    Studies by Harvard economist George Borjas, an outspoken advocate of stronger immigration restrictions, have found much more substantial negative effects on the earnings of native workers. His research concluded that between 1980 and 2000, when immigration increased the labor supply of working men by 11 percent in the United States, that influx reduced the average annual wage of native workers by around 3.2 percent. The wage reductions varied significantly depending on the educational level of the worker: a decline of 8.9 percent for high school dropouts, 4.9 percent for college graduates, 2.6 percent for high school graduates, and little change for workers with some college. [3] (Borjas conducted a follow-up study using similar methodology that concluded that immigration reduced the average annual earnings of native-born men by an estimated $1,700, or 4 percent; among natives without a high school education, the wage reduction was 7.4 percent.) [4]

    A number of studies conducted in the early to mid-1990s, which contrasted earnings levels in different locations rather than looking at national data, generally detected little or no impact on the wages of native workers. [5] Methodological shortcomings of most of those studies, however, have led most academics to conclude that their results may be somewhat misleading. [6]

    So, on balance, most economists concur that immigration has reduced the wages of native workers with relatively little education and few skills. But for the remainder of the U.S. workforce, the impact has not been significant. [7]

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Yes, one nonviolent crime compared to the dozens of times each American breaks the speed limit. That's just the same as "beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered," although I guess that means you support universal amnesty, as that would, obviously, cause the crime rate to plummet.

    At least one crime, possibly more. Deciding "Well if we stop making it a crime the crime rate will go down" is pretty asinine, and has been discussed to death already.

    So if you accept that illegal immigrants do in fact increase crimes, and that studies show keeping them as illegal immigrants benefits us financially if we consider the crimes budget neutral because they use less government services, what exactly are we disagreeing on?

    Except you have yet to show why what they're doing should be illegal, so your argument comes down to saying we shouldn't legalize our immigrants because they're illegal. That's called circular reasoning.

    Unless you can show the crime rate of a community going up due to immigration or illegal immigration, you have yet to show any harm from expanded immigration outside of unsubstantiated assertions that the brown people will rape us in our sleep.

    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
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Except you have yet to show why what they're doing should be illegal, so your argument comes down to saying we shouldn't legalize our immigrants because they're illegal. That's called circular reasoning.

    Unless you can show the crime rate of a community going up due to immigration or illegal immigration, you have yet to show any harm from expanded immigration outside of unsubstantiated assertions that the brown people will rape us in our sleep.

    Because we have a vested interest in both who we allow to enter our country, as well as being able to identify people within our borders.

    I have shown a the crime rate of a community goes up due to illegal immigration. Because the more illegal immigrants in a population, the more criminals.

    X is a crime. We have a viable reason to making X a crime. We have the authority to make X a crime. If X wasn't a crime then all these criminals would not be criminals is not an argument. Rape is a crime, theft is a crime, trespassing in this country is a crime.

    We already have negative effects of illegal, and legal immigration from the very links previously cited. What we do not have is a valid reason to make what is currently a crime, not a crime, or the desire to decimate our lower class by allowing unrestricted immigration of cheap labor.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Except you have yet to show why what they're doing should be illegal, so your argument comes down to saying we shouldn't legalize our immigrants because they're illegal. That's called circular reasoning.

    Unless you can show the crime rate of a community going up due to immigration or illegal immigration, you have yet to show any harm from expanded immigration outside of unsubstantiated assertions that the brown people will rape us in our sleep.

    Because we have a vested interest in both who we allow to enter our country, as well as being able to identify people within our borders.

    I have shown a the crime rate of a community goes up due to illegal immigration. Because the more illegal immigrants in a population, the more criminals.

    X is a crime. We have a viable reason to making X a crime. We have the authority to make X a crime. If X wasn't a crime then all these criminals would not be criminals is not an argument. Rape is a crime, theft is a crime, trespassing in this country is a crime.

    We already have negative effects of illegal, and legal immigration from the very links previously cited. What we do not have is a valid reason to make what is currently a crime, not a crime, or the desire to decimate our lower class by allowing unrestricted immigration of cheap labor.

    Let me see if I have this right: "We shouldn't legalize pot because pot causes crime. How do I know this? Because all pot smokers smoke pot, which is illegal."

    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
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Let me see if I have this right: "We shouldn't legalize pot because pot causes crime. How do I know this? Because all pot smokers smoke pot, which is illegal."

    We do not legalize something just to stop people from being criminals. Often we criminalize something because we have a valid reason to do so. We have valid reasons for criminalizing violating our borders. Ceasing to make it a crime does not invalidate those reasons, moreover the studies linked say both we have a vested financial interest in keeping it a crime, and the influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) have already depressed the wages of our lower class. Bringing in more would further depress their wages. We do not desire that. So why should we decriminalize something that would be bad for us as a country?

    Detharin on
  • Options
    YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Detharin wrote: »
    If by beaten into the ground you mean completely ignored in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is a distinction, and that it matters. Even the first article you linked makes that distinction, and here is the really important part you are not going to like,

    The article you linked states that UNDOCUMENTED workers are a boon on the economy because they pay taxes, buy goods, and use almost no government services for fear of being deported. What is great here is this article makes a great case for keeping UNDOCUMENTED workers UNDOCUMENTED. Because if we turn them from illegal immigrants, foreign invaders, migrant labor, etc, into documented workers they then cost us more because then they are able to use and access more government services, while not paying more into the system.

    The article makes the argument that the current tax system is unfair to illegals, in our favor, ergo turning around and adding open immigration would be bad for us because we are better off, financially, leaving illegal immigrant workers working illegally.

    This of course ignores the crime, and other negative consequences of illegal immigration which is also ignored by the article. Of course how do you quantify a home invasion where the home owners are beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered. Where does that go on a balance sheet?
    So what the data really says then, is that immigration isn't really the issue, it's just that we're better off when we have some way to skirt the welfare state. I would be fine with that. I mean, as it is, legal immigrants are just like illegals for at least the first three years - all tax and no benefit. Maybe we could extend that time frame and legitimize it for more people. I wouldn't want to set up a de facto forced underclass like many socialist states have done, though. It's rather hypocritical and tends towards all the many problems that a forced underclass tends towards.

    And what you're saying, apparently, is that crime sucks and we should do more to combat crime. I'm all for that, too.

    Also, by the way, the number of people who refuse to discuss this issue once faced with any decent argument is more telling than anything.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Can you show any evidence that immigration increases crime? No? Didn't think so.

    I can show a direct correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. Because every illegal immigrant commits at least one crime by being here. How can you say illegal immigrants do not causes increase in crime, when by definition they are criminals?
    Also, you should probably look at the Israeli study posted, which shows that we see the same benefits from legal immigrants.

    Conditions in Isreal are quiet a bit different than they are here, unless you want to argue that volume of government services and opportunities to legal immigrants are the same in Israel as they are in the US. I am addressing a study previously linked that the Isreal study directly contradicts considering the whole point of the study was that illegal immigrants provide a disproportionate gain to the economy due to paying taxes and not receiving government services. Notice that study makes a distinction between documented and undocumented workers.

    Yes, one nonviolent crime compared to the dozens of times each American breaks the speed limit. That's just the same as "beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered," although I guess that means you support universal amnesty, as that would, obviously, cause the crime rate to plummet.
    Based on incarceration rates, Hispanics are about twice as likely to commit crimes as whites (though both groups are less likely be incarcerated than blacks). About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    So, in terms of illegals (who are overwhelmingly Hispanic) we're talking about a relatively high crime group, at least compared to the white population in the US.

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

  • Options
    RedTideRedTide Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Can you show any evidence that immigration increases crime? No? Didn't think so.

    I can show a direct correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. Because every illegal immigrant commits at least one crime by being here. How can you say illegal immigrants do not causes increase in crime, when by definition they are criminals?
    Also, you should probably look at the Israeli study posted, which shows that we see the same benefits from legal immigrants.

    Conditions in Isreal are quiet a bit different than they are here, unless you want to argue that volume of government services and opportunities to legal immigrants are the same in Israel as they are in the US. I am addressing a study previously linked that the Isreal study directly contradicts considering the whole point of the study was that illegal immigrants provide a disproportionate gain to the economy due to paying taxes and not receiving government services. Notice that study makes a distinction between documented and undocumented workers.

    Yes, one nonviolent crime compared to the dozens of times each American breaks the speed limit. That's just the same as "beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered," although I guess that means you support universal amnesty, as that would, obviously, cause the crime rate to plummet.
    Based on incarceration rates, Hispanics are about twice as likely to commit crimes as whites (though both groups are less likely be incarcerated than blacks). About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    So, in terms of illegals (who are overwhelmingly Hispanic) we're talking about a relatively high crime group, at least compared to the white population in the US.

    How does this trend vs general levels of poverty and education in each group though?

    RedTide on
    RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
    Come Overwatch with meeeee
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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?

    I think a certain society-wide standard is necessary, in the form of labor laws. If those laws say a 2nd-level worker is the worst society can tolerate, then a 3rd-level worker is unacceptable, even if someone is willing to work under those conditions. There was a time when employers were able to find 10 year olds willing to spend 15 hours a day sticking their hands into printing presses. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    Going from 7th to 3rd is probably a good thing for that person, in the short-term. I think it's bad for society as a whole in the long-term, if that society believes that 2nd is the lowest it can tolerate. There may be studies that say illegal immigration, as currently practiced, helps more than it hurts. But right now illegal immigration is still at least partially restricted, by a combination of law enforcement, the physically taxing nature of border crossing, and the large sums of money needed to pay immigrant-smugglers.

    I don't know that the current cost/benefit ratio would remain if the gates were to be swung completely open. It's possible a much larger influx of 7th-level workers would create a much stronger downward pull than currently exists, so that what once was 7->3 becomes 7->4, then 7->5, and so on. If you're computing the average of a set of numbers from 1 to 7, the more 7s you add to that set the closer the average will move towards 7.

    I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if I'm misunderstanding you...

    You improve quality of life from 7th class to 3rd class, how is this bad for society as a whole in the long term? It's clearly better for the individual, and from a societal standpoint, you have one less 7th class citizen. If you define "good" as high levels of inequality, then I could see your point about this kind of mobility being a bad thing, but I know you don't believe that. So I'm confused.

    There's a notion of perfection getting in the way of the good, where people with high expectations and high standards don't allow for the incremental changes necessary for real good to occur. That is what I perceive you as advocating, but, again, perhaps I have misunderstood you.

    This is a little separate, but I'm not advocating "completely open gates" in any sort of near-term sense. I think barriers to migration should be gradually eased so as not to disrupt economies, but fundamentally I do believe that unrestricted mobility is a good thing, in the sense that it makes for the largest benefit to the largest number of people. Are there trade-offs? Yes, I believe there are short term tradeoffs, but I don't see why those can't be worked around. It seems like resources would be far more valuably spent actually directly assisting the people who would be hurt by an influx of cheap labor than as they currently are, hiring lits of immigration police and conducting raids and policing borders. It seems like it's easier to manage an economy, and more profitable to more people, than to create a bulwark against one.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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?

    I think a certain society-wide standard is necessary, in the form of labor laws. If those laws say a 2nd-level worker is the worst society can tolerate, then a 3rd-level worker is unacceptable, even if someone is willing to work under those conditions. There was a time when employers were able to find 10 year olds willing to spend 15 hours a day sticking their hands into printing presses. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    Going from 7th to 3rd is probably a good thing for that person, in the short-term. I think it's bad for society as a whole in the long-term, if that society believes that 2nd is the lowest it can tolerate. There may be studies that say illegal immigration, as currently practiced, helps more than it hurts. But right now illegal immigration is still at least partially restricted, by a combination of law enforcement, the physically taxing nature of border crossing, and the large sums of money needed to pay immigrant-smugglers.

    I don't know that the current cost/benefit ratio would remain if the gates were to be swung completely open. It's possible a much larger influx of 7th-level workers would create a much stronger downward pull than currently exists, so that what once was 7->3 becomes 7->4, then 7->5, and so on. If you're computing the average of a set of numbers from 1 to 7, the more 7s you add to that set the closer the average will move towards 7.

    I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if I'm misunderstanding you...

    You improve quality of life from 7th class to 3rd class, how is this bad for society as a whole in the long term?

    Because it comes at the cost of making all your 2nd class people also 3rd class.

    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
    RedTide wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »

    Can you show any evidence that immigration increases crime? No? Didn't think so.

    I can show a direct correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. Because every illegal immigrant commits at least one crime by being here. How can you say illegal immigrants do not causes increase in crime, when by definition they are criminals?
    Also, you should probably look at the Israeli study posted, which shows that we see the same benefits from legal immigrants.

    Conditions in Isreal are quiet a bit different than they are here, unless you want to argue that volume of government services and opportunities to legal immigrants are the same in Israel as they are in the US. I am addressing a study previously linked that the Isreal study directly contradicts considering the whole point of the study was that illegal immigrants provide a disproportionate gain to the economy due to paying taxes and not receiving government services. Notice that study makes a distinction between documented and undocumented workers.

    Yes, one nonviolent crime compared to the dozens of times each American breaks the speed limit. That's just the same as "beaten, gang raped, and brutally murdered," although I guess that means you support universal amnesty, as that would, obviously, cause the crime rate to plummet.
    Based on incarceration rates, Hispanics are about twice as likely to commit crimes as whites (though both groups are less likely be incarcerated than blacks). About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    So, in terms of illegals (who are overwhelmingly Hispanic) we're talking about a relatively high crime group, at least compared to the white population in the US.

    How does this trend vs general levels of poverty and education in each group though?
    There's a pretty damn high correlation between poverty and crime levels. So, it's not unreasonable to think that if Hispanic immigrants can become wealthier, Hispanic crime rates will go down.

    Unfortunately, it seems that Hispanic immigrants are picking up some of the bad habits of our citizen underclass. For example, Hispanic illegitimacy rates have been rising consistently and are at about 50%. If trends like this continue, you're going to see more and more Hispanics stuck at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.

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

  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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?

    I think a certain society-wide standard is necessary, in the form of labor laws. If those laws say a 2nd-level worker is the worst society can tolerate, then a 3rd-level worker is unacceptable, even if someone is willing to work under those conditions. There was a time when employers were able to find 10 year olds willing to spend 15 hours a day sticking their hands into printing presses. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    Going from 7th to 3rd is probably a good thing for that person, in the short-term. I think it's bad for society as a whole in the long-term, if that society believes that 2nd is the lowest it can tolerate. There may be studies that say illegal immigration, as currently practiced, helps more than it hurts. But right now illegal immigration is still at least partially restricted, by a combination of law enforcement, the physically taxing nature of border crossing, and the large sums of money needed to pay immigrant-smugglers.

    I don't know that the current cost/benefit ratio would remain if the gates were to be swung completely open. It's possible a much larger influx of 7th-level workers would create a much stronger downward pull than currently exists, so that what once was 7->3 becomes 7->4, then 7->5, and so on. If you're computing the average of a set of numbers from 1 to 7, the more 7s you add to that set the closer the average will move towards 7.

    I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if I'm misunderstanding you...

    You improve quality of life from 7th class to 3rd class, how is this bad for society as a whole in the long term?

    Because it comes at the cost of making all your 2nd class people also 3rd class.

    As I noted earlier, immigrants are an overall benefit to the American economy, so if you combine immigration with measures to directly boost the welfare of low-skill workers, then all Americans wind up better off.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I am somewhat surprised at Modern Man's position, as the right-wing opposition to immigration is rooted in reactionary nativism, and I did not believe him to be a racist. The left-wing opposition is rooted in labor protectionism, and I did not think that Modern Man had any particular sympathy with that position. The libertarian perspective is typically pro migration rights, so I am confused. I expected him to be on the side of economic growth.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    BubbaT wrote: »
    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?

    I think a certain society-wide standard is necessary, in the form of labor laws. If those laws say a 2nd-level worker is the worst society can tolerate, then a 3rd-level worker is unacceptable, even if someone is willing to work under those conditions. There was a time when employers were able to find 10 year olds willing to spend 15 hours a day sticking their hands into printing presses. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    Going from 7th to 3rd is probably a good thing for that person, in the short-term. I think it's bad for society as a whole in the long-term, if that society believes that 2nd is the lowest it can tolerate. There may be studies that say illegal immigration, as currently practiced, helps more than it hurts. But right now illegal immigration is still at least partially restricted, by a combination of law enforcement, the physically taxing nature of border crossing, and the large sums of money needed to pay immigrant-smugglers.

    I don't know that the current cost/benefit ratio would remain if the gates were to be swung completely open. It's possible a much larger influx of 7th-level workers would create a much stronger downward pull than currently exists, so that what once was 7->3 becomes 7->4, then 7->5, and so on. If you're computing the average of a set of numbers from 1 to 7, the more 7s you add to that set the closer the average will move towards 7.

    I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if I'm misunderstanding you...

    You improve quality of life from 7th class to 3rd class, how is this bad for society as a whole in the long term?

    Because it comes at the cost of making all your 2nd class people also 3rd class.

    As I noted earlier, immigrants are an overall benefit to the American economy, so if you combine immigration with measures to directly boost the welfare of low-skill workers, then all Americans wind up better off.

    And you are completely ignoring the problem of destroyed labor standards.

    No amount of welfare is going to make up for unsafe working conditions and not actually getting paid.

    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: »
    I can show a direct correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. Because every illegal immigrant commits at least one crime by being here. How can you say illegal immigrants do not causes increase in crime, when by definition they are criminals?
    I think you ought to know by now that this point carries no weight whatsoever. It's fucking absurd that I have to keep repeating this: if them being illegal actually counted as a crime, one that justifies why we want to keep them out in the first place, there's a real simple way to solve that. Make them legal. Try again.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Based on incarceration rates, Hispanics are about twice as likely to commit crimes as whites (though both groups are less likely be incarcerated than blacks). About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.3% of white males.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    So, in terms of illegals (who are overwhelmingly Hispanic) we're talking about a relatively high crime group, at least compared to the white population in the US.
    Which, when you adjust for socioeconomic status, which any study worth considering would do, shows what a staggeringly low-crime group Hispanics are.
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Unfortunately, it seems that Hispanic immigrants are picking up some of the bad habits of our citizen underclass. For example, Hispanic illegitimacy rates have been rising consistently and are at about 50%. If trends like this continue, you're going to see more and more Hispanics stuck at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder.
    This is almost certainly due to nothing more than an increased percentage of Hispanics being new immigrants.
    I am somewhat surprised at Modern Man's position, as the right-wing opposition to immigration is rooted in reactionary nativism, and I did not believe him to be a racist. The left-wing opposition is rooted in labor protectionism, and I did not think that Modern Man had any particular sympathy with that position. The libertarian perspective is typically pro migration rights, so I am confused. I expected him to be on the side of economic growth.
    Not sure about Modern Man in that regard, but I know that some notable Libertarians in the American political landscape are unfortunately vicious xenophobes and make a huge exception to their politics in order to decry the Mexican Invasion.

    Yar on
  • Options
    Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    I am somewhat surprised at Modern Man's position, as the right-wing opposition to immigration is rooted in reactionary nativism, and I did not believe him to be a racist. The left-wing opposition is rooted in labor protectionism, and I did not think that Modern Man had any particular sympathy with that position. The libertarian perspective is typically pro migration rights, so I am confused. I expected him to be on the side of economic growth.
    I've never come out against immigration per se. I'm firmly opposed to illegal immigration. I'm fine with targeted immigration to bring in workers if we have a labor shortage in a given sector of the economy. But, with a current unemployment rate of 10%+, I'd be in favor of cutting off immigration completely until the economy recovers.

    I also don't want to see living standards for poorer and middle class Americans get lowered by constant downward wage pressure from immigrants, whether legal or illegal. I don't wan't to live in a country where the middle-class has been wiped out and the only groups left are the rich and the poor (even though I would likely be in the "rich" category).

    I'm a big fan of economic growth, I just don't see how letting a large group of poor and uneducated people, who seem to be picking up the social pathologies of our domestic underclass, into the country will accomplish that.

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

  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    As I noted earlier, immigrants are an overall benefit to the American economy, so if you combine immigration with measures to directly boost the welfare of low-skill workers, then all Americans wind up better off.

    And you are completely ignoring the problem of destroyed labor standards.

    No amount of welfare is going to make up for unsafe working conditions and not actually getting paid.

    I guess I don't see why people would work if they don't get paid. Isn't that more of a problem that the current regime enables than one that an immigrant-friendly regime would encounter?

    Also, fundamentally, these seem like the same arguments that people employ against free trade. Yes, Chinese people can assemble iPhones very cheaply, and in a sense that's labor that isn't being employed here. So what? Economies evolve. You're substantively supporting protectionism for people who clean toilets and pick strawberries, for jobs that can't be shipped overseas.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I also don't want to see living standards for poorer and middle class Americans get lowered by constant downward wage pressure from immigrants, whether legal or illegal. I don't wan't to live in a country where the middle-class has been wiped out and the only groups left are the rich and the poor (even though I would likely be in the "rich" category).

    I'm a big fan of economic growth, I just don't see how letting a large group of poor and uneducated people, who seem to be picking up the social pathologies of our domestic underclass, into the country will accomplish that.

    I suppose I could be mistaken, but all the economic data I've read indicates that the middle class would benefit about as much as the wealthy people, if such a comparison can really be made. The availability of cheap nannies and houseworkers, for example, allows for more people to spend more time out of the home, being productive and spending money on things while they enjoy their free time.

    Arguments against poor and uneducated people have come up in history ever since there started to be waves of immigrants. This has not been a problem yet. They come here to work, and they do that because there is work to be done. The do not come here to be criminals, and while some do that's not a problem of immigration, that's a problem of people in general.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I am somewhat surprised at Modern Man's position, as the right-wing opposition to immigration is rooted in reactionary nativism, and I did not believe him to be a racist. The left-wing opposition is rooted in labor protectionism, and I did not think that Modern Man had any particular sympathy with that position. The libertarian perspective is typically pro migration rights, so I am confused. I expected him to be on the side of economic growth.
    Not sure about Modern Man in that regard, but I know that some notable Libertarians in the American political landscape are unfortunately vicious xenophobes and make a huge exception to their politics in order to decry the Mexican Invasion.

    I don't agree with Modern Man and I find many of his ideas reprehensible, but I think he's more of a self-interested individual than a reactionary racist. I assume you're talking about the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul types. I don't really consider them libertarians, though "libertarian" is a squishy word with a lot of variance. The very notion of racism and xenophobia seems like it goes against the notion historically, etymologically... I accept that people like that often use the term, but I don't accept it as a valid strain.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    If a pure marketarian libertarian isn't racist, then he is ignorant - often willfully so, of the actual history of this country.

    override367 on
Sign In or Register to comment.