Employers in agriculture and other illegal-heavy industry have gleefully engaged in a race to the bottom when it comes to jobs in those industries due to the availability of illegal laborers who are willing to accept shitty working conditions and wages.
On the other hand it could just be that people aren't willing to leave behind their friends and social network to do things they'd rather not be doing in a place that they think sucks. On that same hand, there are people who are willing to do those jobs AND they're willing to risk their lives.
In the meantime, there is demand in those areas, and it's not being met.
So if you own a giant industrial farm it really sucks that our government doesn't let more Illegal labor come over.
Indica1 on
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
First off, that last line there is a dick move and not really conducive to open discussion. Good job.
That said, there is a big difference between "open borders" and "relaxed immigration restrictions". Making it easier to come here and get a job is cool, and I think most people could get behind that. Genuinely open borders, in which anyone who sets foot in the US is legally indistinguishable from a US citizen, is a terrible idea. Because suddenly the US is the place where anybody in the world can come and immediately get all the free economic assistance granted to any other citizen. If you can manage to set foot over the border, you are instantly qualified for free cash and food stamps and the like. There is no reason why every third worlder on the planet would not sell their spleens to come here on the next boat. Because being destitute here is still better than living in most poor nations.
Since you were unclear about exactly is supposed to be so fucking obvious, it's hard to tell if you're advocating something beneficial or completely retarded.
agreed. Anecdote inbound:
Yeah uhh, the UK has essentially a "if you can get here then we've got you covered" immigration policy. Apparently they'll set you up in an apartment large enough for your family, and then pay you to not work, and give free education to your kids. The result is 20 year old men and women pretending to be kids (fairly easy to do when there's no birth records, passports, driver's licenses, etc) to get a free base-level education and then exporting a portion of their government assistance back to family and friends in Bengal where a couple GBP goes a lot farther than it does in the UK. Or at least, that's a fairly typical situation in the inner-city schools according to my sister who taught English over there for a few years.
The fun part is that now there's a large enough proportion of the population acting like these (and I hate using the phrase, but) welfare queens that it's political suicide to support any kind of reform that fixes government assisted living. You'd be seen as a racist who just wants to kick out the foreigners.
First off, that last line there is a dick move and not really conducive to open discussion. Good job.
That said, there is a big difference between "open borders" and "relaxed immigration restrictions". Making it easier to come here and get a job is cool, and I think most people could get behind that. Genuinely open borders, in which anyone who sets foot in the US is legally indistinguishable from a US citizen, is a terrible idea. Because suddenly the US is the place where anybody in the world can come and immediately get all the free economic assistance granted to any other citizen. If you can manage to set foot over the border, you are instantly qualified for free cash and food stamps and the like. There is no reason why every third worlder on the planet would not sell their spleens to come here on the next boat. Because being destitute here is still better than living in most poor nations.
Since you were unclear about exactly is supposed to be so fucking obvious, it's hard to tell if you're advocating something beneficial or completely retarded.
agreed. Anecdote inbound:
Yeah uhh, the UK has essentially a "if you can get here then we've got you covered" immigration policy. Apparently they'll set you up in an apartment large enough for your family, and then pay you to not work, and give free education to your kids. The result is 20 year old men and women pretending to be kids (fairly easy to do when there's no birth records, passports, driver's licenses, etc) to get a free base-level education and then exporting a portion of their government assistance back to family and friends in Bengal where a couple GBP goes a lot farther than it does in the UK. Or at least, that's a fairly typical situation in the inner-city schools according to my sister who taught English over there for a few years.
The fun part is that now there's a large enough proportion of the population acting like these (and I hate using the phrase, but) welfare queens that it's political suicide to support any kind of reform that fixes government assisted living. You'd be seen as a racist who just wants to kick out the foreigners.
Illegal immigrants (people who can get here) aren't entitled to benefits (for the obvious reason that they are here illegally and would be arrested and probably deported).
Asylum seekers are housed privately or through NASS, and receive a stipend of £36.62 a week (for a single adult), which would probably just cover your food costs. So "fixing" government assisted living wouldn't affect asylum seekers, because their system is separate. Neither group is legally allowed to work (asylum seekers are sometimes allowed to with special permission). Asylum seekers access to free education and healthcare is standard for anyone entitled to live in the country. A survey of 150 asylum seekers by Personnel Today in 2001 found that:
Almost 30 per cent of refugees surveyed had a university degree and a further quarter possessed A-level or GCSE equivalents. More than 50 per cent had more than three years’ relevant work experience in their country of origin.
Migrant workers are possibly entitled to benefits depending on their country of origin, but they need a visa to come here (or be a citizen of an EU country).
When you say your sister taught English, do you mean she wrote for the Daily Mail? :P
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
Nope, I was just going off of what she said, maybe she read the Daily Mail frequently, or thought it was a legit paper? If she's wrong then I imagine she got her info from disenchanted lower-middle class parents and students who may have been in the same category as the American "Mexicans are taking our jobs" crowd. Unfortunately the name of the boroughs she lived/taught in escape me. Her boyfriend seems to at least corroborate a large number of low income persons who choose to take benefits instead of working just so they don't have to do anything, perhaps I was incorrectly conflating two separate problems?
Nope, I was just going off of what she said, maybe she read the Daily Mail frequently, or thought it was a legit paper? If she's wrong then I imagine she got her info from disenchanted lower-middle class parents and students who may have been in the same category as the American "Mexicans are taking our jobs" crowd. Unfortunately the name of the boroughs she lived/taught in escape me. Her boyfriend seems to at least corroborate a large number of low income persons who choose to take benefits instead of working just so they don't have to do anything, perhaps I was incorrectly conflating two separate problems?
A lot of people in the UK are uninformed and (wrongly) conflate the two separate issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they gave you bad information, because it is such a common myth.
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
edited October 2011
alright, consider me shamed & embarrassed for repeating bad data.
I am somewhat curious as to the dynamics between aggregate supply, aggregate demand, and inflation, under the effect of hypothetical net immigration or emigration...
Especially when prevailing unemployed is cyclical rather than structural. Certainly "immigration -> unemployment" is non-obvious, because immigrants buy things too.
I bet someone out there has already modeled it for me. Hm.
ronya on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
tbh we should just open our borders to india
indian immigrants are the best thing to ever happen to the uk
I just don't see how you would get over the generalised rage factor when it comes to immigration. Established communities often react badly, for whatever reason, to discernable levels of immigration, even when the latter are related, friendly or useful. This rage or bad reaction may not manisfest itself outside of grumbling but it can get nasty, perhaps if there happens to be a media outlet that specialises in aggravating rage (see Daily Mail). Anyway, responding to this rage or disquiet is essential wherever governments need to be accountable to their citizenry. The negative reaction can be examined and analysed but I don't see that it can be prevented, perhaps just mitigated.
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Well ethically problematic as the UN would probably have a problem if we began using nukes on the Niger delta. Still though I suppose they could have terrorists. Which would allow conventional bombing. Do you have a plan in place to exploit their substantial mineral and oil wealth already?
So, in your view, the only reasons that could count against elimination of the population of the Niger are essentially tactical, based on fear of repercussions from the world community?
I suppose this is something that one could believe--man's inhumanity to man and all that. I'm nonetheless somewhat surprised to see someone fess up to it in this day and age.
So you are using flawed reasoning (appeals to ethics and emotions, neither of which I possess in a large degree)
You "not having ethics to a large degree" is not a flaw with ethical reasoning. It's a flaw with you.
Hooray! Emotions are for the weak!
But it is not facts, though, ethical reasoning. Although I do care about poor people worldwide, I simply do not see how letting a bunch of them in would help us. I mean, if there are jobs that are not being filled due to only illegals wanting them, then employers should raise wages/benefits/working conditions, as Modern Man said. For example, the migrant workers picking the oranges in my state are virtually slaves (some of them are real slaves) and are taken advantage of by farmers/supermarkets. I would be happy to pay an extra 10 to 20 cents per tomato/orange/whatever in order to give the migrants some protections and benefits.
I don't think letting more people in so they could be taken advantage of by farmers, slaughterhouses, contractors, etc. is really the solution here.
Although I do care about poor people worldwide, I simply do not see how letting a bunch of them in would help us. I mean, if there are jobs that are not being filled due to only illegals wanting them, then employers should raise wages/benefits/working conditions, as Modern Man said. For example, the migrant workers picking the oranges in my state are virtually slaves (some of them are real slaves) and are taken advantage of by farmers/supermarkets. I would be happy to pay an extra 10 to 20 cents per tomato/orange/whatever in order to give the migrants some protections and benefits.
I don't think letting more people in so they could be taken advantage of by farmers, slaughterhouses, contractors, etc. is really the solution here.
Even assuming that they're being "taken advantage of" by farmers and the like, simply by doing it in America they would be making much more than they would in their country of origin. Simply by moving from one side of a border to the other, even if the work is the same, the migrant can make orders of magnitude more than in his or her country of origin.
That is, we get labor, the migrant gets a lot of money, and if the labor is legal, they get the protection and benefits without having to pay a premium for them. You say that they're "virtually slaves" here, but they're coming from conditions that are even worse.
I just don't see how you would get over the generalised rage factor when it comes to immigration. Established communities often react badly, for whatever reason, to discernable levels of immigration, even when the latter are related, friendly or useful. This rage or bad reaction may not manisfest itself outside of grumbling but it can get nasty, perhaps if there happens to be a media outlet that specialises in aggravating rage (see Daily Mail). Anyway, responding to this rage or disquiet is essential wherever governments need to be accountable to their citizenry. The negative reaction can be examined and analysed but I don't see that it can be prevented, perhaps just mitigated.
I agree that this is a problem. But it was also a problem with racial integration, it's a problem with same-sex marriage.
Keep in mind also that this nationalist-racism is relatively new in human history, within the past 150 years or so. I think there's a xenophobic instinct hardwired into our psyche, but it's not intrinsically anti-"immigrant", and it's something that can be gotten over.
1) Poor people are budgetary costs, that they pay taxes here or there doesn't change that They require more services than they pay for in taxes. Adding more of them would require an increase in the taxes on everyone already here.
2) But in aggregate the unemployment situation is bad. The only advantage an immigrant has over a native born worker are their willingness to work in poor conditions for bad wages. Filling a job with a native worker has a two fold advantage here. There is immediately 1 less unemployed person, and the higher wages create more demand.
A large wave of immigration would actually make the wealth-disparity situation in the US much worse; As those who make there income via capital gains will benefit(lower costs for companies) while depressing the wages for those who make their income through labor.
The earliest studies on fiscal effects of immigration for the US yielded conflicting results. Passel and Clark (1994) calculated that immigrants paid $27b more in taxes than the benefi…ts they derived from the US social and education systems. By contrast, Huddle (1993) argued that immigrants represented an annual net cost of $40b in 1992. Borjas (1995a) criticized the earlier studies for making unreasonable assumptions. He estimated the net impact of immigration to range from a $16b cost to a $60b bene…fit depending on the assumptions made... In a later study, Borjas (2001) argued that the positive effects of immigration are created by improved labor market efficiency, with gains accruing to natives between $5b and $10b. More recent US studies have calculated that the average net cost or bene…fit of a single immigrant is very small.
(3) There are a range of options that don't necessitate a "large wave". Again, the evidence for wage-depression suggests that it's extremely small. Immigrants need to shop for food and clothing, live in houses too. To the extent that we're talking a lot of poor people, they'd largely be competing with other recent immigrants and people who haven't finished high school.
Our current unemployment rate is due to low demand. Some people may not know this, but brown people eat.
Um, what?
A low wage worker cannot create more jobs than he occupies. If they could, there would be 0% unemployment right now, and employeers would be desprate for employees. You can see this is not the case.
A high wage earner can create more jobs than he occupies, but only if they are of lower wage. Adding more low wage workers cannot result in fewer unemployed people.
Although I do care about poor people worldwide, I simply do not see how letting a bunch of them in would help us. I mean, if there are jobs that are not being filled due to only illegals wanting them, then employers should raise wages/benefits/working conditions, as Modern Man said. For example, the migrant workers picking the oranges in my state are virtually slaves (some of them are real slaves) and are taken advantage of by farmers/supermarkets. I would be happy to pay an extra 10 to 20 cents per tomato/orange/whatever in order to give the migrants some protections and benefits.
I don't think letting more people in so they could be taken advantage of by farmers, slaughterhouses, contractors, etc. is really the solution here.
Even assuming that they're being "taken advantage of" by farmers and the like, simply by doing it in America they would be making much more than they would in their country of origin. Simply by moving from one side of a border to the other, even if the work is the same, the migrant can make orders of magnitude more than in his or her country of origin.
That is, we get labor, the migrant gets a lot of money, and if the labor is legal, they get the protection and benefits without having to pay a premium for them. You say that they're "virtually slaves" here, but they're coming from conditions that are even worse.
If there were perfect information being transmitted back to the home country, that might be the case, but there isn't always that, a lot of migrants are simply deceived as to the condition they are being sent to.
Although I do care about poor people worldwide, I simply do not see how letting a bunch of them in would help us. I mean, if there are jobs that are not being filled due to only illegals wanting them, then employers should raise wages/benefits/working conditions, as Modern Man said. For example, the migrant workers picking the oranges in my state are virtually slaves (some of them are real slaves) and are taken advantage of by farmers/supermarkets. I would be happy to pay an extra 10 to 20 cents per tomato/orange/whatever in order to give the migrants some protections and benefits.
I don't think letting more people in so they could be taken advantage of by farmers, slaughterhouses, contractors, etc. is really the solution here.
Even assuming that they're being "taken advantage of" by farmers and the like, simply by doing it in America they would be making much more than they would in their country of origin. Simply by moving from one side of a border to the other, even if the work is the same, the migrant can make orders of magnitude more than in his or her country of origin.
That is, we get labor, the migrant gets a lot of money, and if the labor is legal, they get the protection and benefits without having to pay a premium for them. You say that they're "virtually slaves" here, but they're coming from conditions that are even worse.
If there were perfect information being transmitted back to the home country, that might be the case, but there isn't always that, a lot of migrants are simply deceived as to the condition they are being sent to.
While perfect information isn't there, a lot of information is; most latin communities still keep the old relatives updated.
So you are using flawed reasoning (appeals to ethics and emotions, neither of which I possess in a large degree)
You "not having ethics to a large degree" is not a flaw with ethical reasoning. It's a flaw with you.
Hooray! Emotions are for the weak!
But it is not facts, though, ethical reasoning. Although I do care about poor people worldwide, I simply do not see how letting a bunch of them in would help us. I mean, if there are jobs that are not being filled due to only illegals wanting them, then employers should raise wages/benefits/working conditions, as Modern Man said. For example, the migrant workers picking the oranges in my state are virtually slaves (some of them are real slaves) and are taken advantage of by farmers/supermarkets. I would be happy to pay an extra 10 to 20 cents per tomato/orange/whatever in order to give the migrants some protections and benefits.
I don't think letting more people in so they could be taken advantage of by farmers, slaughterhouses, contractors, etc. is really the solution here.
So we've got one guy who confuses ethical reasoning with practical consequences, and another who dismisses ethical reasoning as unfactual.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Not a practical consequence in sight, not a fact in evidence. And yet you they're the words that lay the foundation for your society.
This thread has some very, very odd lines of reasoning.
Our current unemployment rate is due to low demand. Some people may not know this, but brown people eat.
Um, what?
A low wage worker cannot create more jobs than he occupies. If they could, there would be 0% unemployment right now, and employers would be desperate for employees. You can see this is not the case.
A high wage earner can create more jobs than he occupies, but only if they are of lower wage. Adding more low wage workers cannot result in fewer unemployed people.
This would directly contradict the general observation that helicopter-dropping money on low-wage workers increases demand more than on high-wage workers in the short-run... you may be confusing between levels and margins. Employing a thousand low-wage workers at the margin, moving them from unemployed to employed, employs more than a thousand more people in the aggregate.
This would directly contradict the general observation that helicopter-dropping money on low-wage workers increases demand more than on high-wage workers in the short-run... you may be confusing between levels and margins.
It does not. What you are talking about is adding money to a closed system, what the thread is talking about is adding workers. Imagine instead, helicopter-dropping people.
Adding workers does not increase the supply of money, every dollar a worker earns is a dollar removed from the system. In a perfect system, they would spend every dollar they earned, returning it to the system and exactly recreating the job they occupy. Since this is not a perfect system (as evidenced by the fact it is operated by humans), there is loss.
Employing a thousand low-wage workers at the margin, moving them from unemployed to employed, employs more than a thousand more people in the aggregate.
This is true, but not what we're talking about.
What we are talking about is adding new workers to a system that already has 9 or so % unemployment; And if adding those people creates as many jobs as it adds people who need jobs (or more).
Firstly, job creation can be a very slow thing. So in the short run, just dumping workers is going to increase unemployment. This make now a poor time to perform this action.
Secondly, it has been historically proven that an effective way to combat unemployment is to REMOVE large chunks of low income workers from the system. In the past, this has been known as "going to war". This is currently a weaker option as wars are currently fought more with money and less with troop lives.
Our current unemployment rate is due to low demand. Some people may not know this, but brown people eat.
Um, what?
A low wage worker cannot create more jobs than he occupies. If they could, there would be 0% unemployment right now, and employers would be desperate for employees. You can see this is not the case.
A high wage earner can create more jobs than he occupies, but only if they are of lower wage. Adding more low wage workers cannot result in fewer unemployed people.
This would directly contradict the general observation that helicopter-dropping money on low-wage workers increases demand more than on high-wage workers in the short-run... you may be confusing between levels and margins. Employing a thousand low-wage workers at the margin, moving them from unemployed to employed, employs more than a thousand more people in the aggregate.
It contradict the money drop not at all. BSoB is saying that filling a bunch of positions with sub-minimum wage labor, doesn't improve demand, as much as filling those positions at a higher wage. Basically, by depressing wages for these positions, illegal immigrant labor is the exact opposite of a money drop for the poor(especially because they repatriate excess money to their home countries, rather than spend it here). The owner of the business makes more money(money drop on the rich), while the employees make less(no money drop on the poor).
And while your right in aggregate, this isn't taking 1000 unemployed people and employing them. This is taking 1000 people who are neither employed or unemployed(as it effects the US economy), bring them here and filling 1000 positions with them. While there is some aggregate gain Its:
1) less than employing 1000 native workers into those positions
2) The lower wages and repatriation mean that the gain above 1000 positions will be lower than with native workers.
Now that may be countered by the extra demand created by cheaper groceries, giving more disposable income to everyone...but I have not idea yes or no one that.
Our current unemployment rate is due to low demand. Some people may not know this, but brown people eat.
A Mexican can buy American agricultural products in the US or Mexico. Him moving across the Rio Grande doesn't magically create more demand for American goods and services.
And given the unemployment rate, it's not like he's going to fill a job that's been sitting empty due to a labor shortage.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Our current unemployment rate is due to low demand. Some people may not know this, but brown people eat.
A Mexican can buy American agricultural products in the US or Mexico. Him moving across the Rio Grande doesn't magically create more demand for American goods and services.
I can get an American haircut in Mexico? Can I buy an American house or rent an American apartment, too?
And given the unemployment rate, it's not like he's going to fill a job that's been sitting empty due to a labor shortage.
Except in the aformentioned places where there is a labor shortage that Americans aren't filling.
Except in the aformentioned places where there is a labor shortage that Americans aren't filling.
Those employers are going to have to increase wages, improve working conditions and/or provide better benefits. I have little sympathy for an employer that offers a job that is just above third-world standards, then complains that he can't find American workers to fill the job.
The availability of illegal labor has allowed certain industries to engage in a race to the bottom with regards to pay, benefits and worker safety. I really don't see how our national interests are served by allowing this type of thing.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Except in the aformentioned places where there is a labor shortage that Americans aren't filling.
Those employers are going to have to increase wages, improve working conditions and/or provide better benefits. I have little sympathy for an employer that offers a job that is just above third-world standards, then complains that he can't find American workers to fill the job.
The availability of illegal labor has allowed certain industries to engage in a race to the bottom with regards to pay, benefits and worker safety. I really don't see how our national interests are served by allowing this type of thing.
Except that wont work. With increased globalization these businesses have had to compete with overseas businesses which have far, far cheaper labor.
I saw a great example last weekend when my family and I went apple picking at a local orchard. People there were complaining about how expensive it was (nearly $100 or a family of four and $2.50/lb. for the apples you picked). But they are forgetting that the $.99/lb apples they buy at the grocery store were grown in China.
Minimum wage was a good idea before globalization, but until we can force a global minimum wage (ha!) it just cannot work in the United States any more.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Minimum wage was a good idea before globalization, but until we can force a global minimum wage (ha!) it just cannot work in the United States any more.
Holy crap, man. what you're basically proposing is dropping the wages of the poorest Americans to third-world levels. I don't see that as a solution to anything.
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It's not a solution; that's the problem. The businesses can't compete. Not without some kind of government intervention or supplementation. Right now with the state government driving out the illegals (the only ones who will work these jobs) and the federal government minimum wage preventing legally hiring low income workers at competitive rates with China, nobody is going to be working.
It's actually even worse than my "solution".
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
The real solution, of course, being rational tariffs on such industries that employ slave labor to pad their margins. Free trade was simply a bad idea for American interests.
Also, heavy fines for outsourcing such labor. Nike should absolutely not be profiting from slave / child labor, and they absolutely are.
First off, that last line there is a dick move and not really conducive to open discussion. Good job.
That said, there is a big difference between "open borders" and "relaxed immigration restrictions". Making it easier to come here and get a job is cool, and I think most people could get behind that. Genuinely open borders, in which anyone who sets foot in the US is legally indistinguishable from a US citizen, is a terrible idea. Because suddenly the US is the place where anybody in the world can come and immediately get all the free economic assistance granted to any other citizen. If you can manage to set foot over the border, you are instantly qualified for free cash and food stamps and the like. There is no reason why every third worlder on the planet would not sell their spleens to come here on the next boat. Because being destitute here is still better than living in most poor nations.
Since you were unclear about exactly is supposed to be so fucking obvious, it's hard to tell if you're advocating something beneficial or completely retarded.
What you did here is make a good argument for why food stamps and economic assistance aren't really all that morally defensible on a grand scale. I mean, you conveniently left out the statement that would make your argument an actual complete argument - the statement that explains why it is right for those of us lucky enough to already be here to enjoy these benefits exclusively, and right for us to use our resources and force to keep others from them, or why it would be bad for people in other countries to dilute those benefits peaceably in their own interest.
And ironic that you open by calling the OP's last line a dick move, and then for your last line you say "that would retarded, just cuz, duh" instead of actually completing the argument you started to make.
If we're going to do this - for the greater good - some compromises will have to be made. Give and take. Minimum standards for immigrants are a must:
- speak English
- pay your taxes
- plan to stay in America for at least five years. Develop some roots in a community.
We could make those pretty much for anyone, immigration doesn't really matter.
I'm a little wary of importing a large (ethnically defined?) economic underclass.
I mean, the extent that one hasn't already arrived.
We have this painful history . . .
You mean a history of them fueling our successful world economy? Or the part where locals are mean to them? Because I'm not real sure anyone takes segregation as a serious answer to bigotry anymore.
Welcome to a representative democracy. You do understand the difference between arguing that blacks and women inside America should be given the right to actively participate in their own government and arguing that the government of the United States should metaphorically cut the throats of those same people in favor of undermining foreign governments. Blacks and Women were fighting for the same representation in their government afforded only to whites/males. People in other countries already have a government representing them. We are not it.
And you realize of course that once an immigrant sets foot on U.S. soil, they are inside America. At which point you're splitting hairs between "geography of birth" and "color of skin," both being things one is born with and has no control over. Which brings us back to a more rational analysis of whether it's better to build higher walls, or just accept that many people have the will and the way to get here, and focus on how to integrate them and get the most benefit for all from them.
Why SHOULD the American people be interested in electing a government that will act in ways detrimental to them? Why would they not just decided to vote said government out and elect one that represents their wishes?
The cool thing about this argument is that it is inherently circular. If we opened up borders, the voters, the "American people," would not be the exact same group you are trying to speak for here. They'd be a group who benefitted a lot more from open borders than they were harmed by it.
Your argument is an appeal to emotion. It is not worth considering. Look if thinking of the children means that much to you then, join NAMBLA. That is the one thing about Pedophiles, they are always thinking of the children.
Lol, I've never heard a nativist argument that wasn't pure-bred appeal to emotion.
Minimum wage was a good idea before globalization, but until we can force a global minimum wage (ha!) it just cannot work in the United States any more.
Holy crap, man. what you're basically proposing is dropping the wages of the poorest Americans to third-world levels. I don't see that as a solution to anything.
Their wages are artificially inflated. The value of their work on the global market is far below what they get for it. That sucks, but the imbalance works against us, and building higher walls is not an economically feasible solution. Trying to shove the market counter to its own natural inclinations, trying to stop wants from meeting needs at an equilibrium exchange, this eventually makes things overall worse for everyone, and tends to fail over time and require more and more drastic measures to keep up.
You want to stop illegal immigration? There are really only two ways: 1) make our economy and living standards equal to that of other countries, so there is no longer incentive, or 2) open the borders, so it is no longer illegal. Over the long term, something closer to #2 will work out better for us, IMO.
tl;dr: Eventually I hope a generation of Americans will realize that immigration is a part and parcel to the many positive things we've got going for us here. We've got a lot of space. A lot of resources. Immigrant labor has time and time again revitalized a waning and suffering working class here. The argument has been made for centuries that they take our jobs and ruin the lives of the more deserving native whites... putting aside the whiny arrogant bigotry of that, it has NEVER actually worked out that way anyway. The Dutch didn't destroy our economy. Or the Germans. Or the freed slaves. Or the Chinese. Or the Irish. Or the Mexicans. It was always screamed from the rooftops that they would, but things always just seemed to get even better instead.
You want to stop illegal immigration? There are really only two ways: 1) make our economy and living standards equal to that of other countries, so there is no longer incentive, or 2) open the borders, so it is no longer illegal. Over the long term, something closer to #2 will work out better for us, IMO.
You do realize that #2 will lead to #1, right? Opening the borders and allowing an unlimited influx of cheap labor will drop wages and working standards for the poorest Americans. It's a very simple equation- as labor supply increases, employers have more power and can extract more concessions from workers.
Low-income Americans would prefer a safe workplace with a decent wage where the boss can't grope the cute female workers? Fuck that, we've opened the border and there are now millions of people from other countries willing to accept all the bullshit you can pile on them, because it's better than being poor in El Salvador.
You forgot option #3, though- pass laws that make life difficult for illegals, thereby encouraging them to self-deport, enact better border controls and punish employers for hiring illegals.
tl;dr: Eventually I hope a generation of Americans will realize that immigration is a part and parcel to the many positive things we've got going for us here. We've got a lot of space. A lot of resources. Immigrant labor has time and time again revitalized a waning and suffering working class here. The argument has been made for centuries that they take our jobs and ruin the lives of the more deserving native whites... putting aside the whiny arrogant bigotry of that, it has NEVER actually worked out that way anyway. The Dutch didn't destroy our economy. Or the Germans. Or the freed slaves. Or the Chinese. Or the Irish. Or the Mexicans. It was always screamed from the rooftops that they would, but things always just seemed to get even better instead.
You're talking about a time where the country had a relatively low population, a frontier that needed to be tamed, a general labor shortage and/or was in the middle of industrializing.
That's not America today. Do we need immigrants with certain skills? Absolutely, and we can tailor our immigration policies to reflect that. But, no one can argue with a straight face that we have a shortage of unskilled labor today.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Another example of circular reasoning. If the goverment let them come over, then doesn't that mean they're legal?
You may wish to open your eyes and look around. Several local governments and certain members of federal agencies right now do everything they can to allow illegals, yet they remain "illegal".
You do realize that #2 will lead to #1, right? Opening the borders and allowing an unlimited influx of cheap labor will drop wages and working standards for the poorest Americans. It's a very simple equation- as labor supply increases, employers have more power and can extract more concessions from workers.
That's why I said something closer to #2. I'm not a total free-market libertarian, but in general it seems that the benefit is greater to all when equilibrium is allowed to occur instead of fought tooth and nail.
But there is a definite cost involved in migration. People don't leave their homes on a whim. I'm not glorifying the migrant, I'm just saying that opening borders will allow those who want to make more connect with those who want to pay less. Even under your fallacious pessismistic economic view, this would only occur until the benefit wasn't worth migration, meaning things would still be better here than elsewhere. But historically, what really happens is that our ecomony just keeps getting better here for it, opportunities just keep evolving, and we just keep replenishing the lowest rungs of the working class with more immgrants whose lives are greatly improved by it. The waves of displaced or mistreated American workers never seem to materialize. Instead, they leverage their inherent advantage in language and resources and culture, combined with the cheap cost of labor, to build new businesses and industries and careers. Compar this to countries with stricter immigration policies who only seem to grow and grow the ranks of unemployed underskilled natives.
Low-income Americans would prefer a safe workplace with a decent wage where the boss can't grope the cute female workers? Fuck that, we've opened the border and there are now millions of people from other countries willing to accept all the bullshit you can pile on them, because it's better than being poor in El Salvador.
Unsafe workplaces and groping workers are crimes and not a matter we ought to try to address through economic protectionism. Though strict immigration control does certainly keep many workers away from the kinds of protections they ought to have. "Decent wage" is a relative moral judgment that much of the world would consider you indecent and arrogant for suggesting.
You forgot option #3, though- pass laws that make life difficult for illegals, thereby encouraging them to self-deport, enact better border controls and punish employers for hiring illegals.
The point was that this option doesn't really exist. As a wise economist once said, you might as well pass laws telling the tides not to come in. If the measures you are suggesting actually succeed at improving the problems you imagine immigration creates, then those measures will have increased the incentives for immigrants, and the measures will have to be upped again. This is generally how all protectionsist economic practices tend to work. As I and many others have pointed out, take a look at those countries who do what you suggest, and look at their unemployment, or at their immigrants' cultural immersion, or so on.
You're talking about a time where the country had a relatively low population, a frontier that needed to be tamed, a general labor shortage and/or was in the middle of industrializing.
And sadly someday I'm certain people will be equivocating about why Mexican immigration also had some unique factor going for it. I mean, all the arguments against immigration are the same as they were in each of the previous groups. Everyone said then what you're saying now, and were always wrong, for the same reasons.
That's not America today. Do we need immigrants with certain skills? Absolutely, and we can tailor our immigration policies to reflect that. But, no one can argue with a straight face that we have a shortage of unskilled labor today.
Needing immigrants with certain skills is a distracting discussion that avoids the basics. If we need immigrants with certain skills, then we've really got a problem, because we ought to be at least as well equipped as any country in the world to create and incentivize skilled workers. I'd much rather listen to your arguments if you were telling me about how we should be teaching an unskilled native how to do that skilled job. Because if we did that, we've solved both problems, and we don't need to build walls or deport people.
Another example of circular reasoning. If the goverment let them come over, then doesn't that mean they're legal?
You may wish to open your eyes and look around. Several local governments and certain members of federal agencies right now do everything they can to allow illegals, yet they remain "illegal".
You do realize that we deported a record number of people last year, right?
and "certain local governments" are mostly trying to avoid us turning into Mexico. It is really, really dangerous to have a large class of people that can't turn to the police for protection. Because then they turn to other methods. We have that too much already, and getting local police involved in immigration issues creates too much more of it.
and "certain local governments" are mostly trying to avoid us turning into Mexico. It is really, really dangerous to have a large class of people that can't turn to the police for protection. Because then they turn to other methods. We have that too much already, and getting local police involved in immigration issues creates too much more of it.
Little known fun fact:
The L.A. gang culture first evolved in the 1930s as a response to white rednecks driving into black neighborhoods to beat, rape and murder the residents. The police wouldn't do shit, so gangs of armed black youths formed to protect their blocks.
Those gangs persisted, eventually turning to crime, dealing drugs and fully metastasizing into a national syndicate during the 80s crack epidemic. A lot of other criminal organizations have similar roots. Hell, the Costra Nostra was first formed as a security/police force in the chaotic collapse of feudalism in Italy.
So, yeah. Forcing ethnic groups to rely on themselves for protection the face of hostile or indifferent law enforcement has a long history of unwanted consequences.
Not to mention that the poorest among us always tend to have the toughest time guiding their children through a life that doesn't lead to crime. Mexican culture, perhaps being somewhat Catholic and work-oriented and all, seems to have actually done a relatively good job of staying out of trouble, when you fairly factor in socieconomic status on crime statisics. I'd pick up a poor Mexican hitchhiker any day over a poor white or a poor black. Maybe racist, but just sayin'.
Except in the aformentioned places where there is a labor shortage that Americans aren't filling.
Those employers are going to have to increase wages, improve working conditions and/or provide better benefits. I have little sympathy for an employer that offers a job that is just above third-world standards, then complains that he can't find American workers to fill the job.
The availability of illegal labor has allowed certain industries to engage in a race to the bottom with regards to pay, benefits and worker safety. I really don't see how our national interests are served by allowing this type of thing.
Can I quote you on this the next time union busting comes up?
Except in the aformentioned places where there is a labor shortage that Americans aren't filling.
Those employers are going to have to increase wages, improve working conditions and/or provide better benefits. I have little sympathy for an employer that offers a job that is just above third-world standards, then complains that he can't find American workers to fill the job.
The availability of illegal labor has allowed certain industries to engage in a race to the bottom with regards to pay, benefits and worker safety. I really don't see how our national interests are served by allowing this type of thing.
Can I quote you on this the next time union busting comes up?
Yeah, conservatives tend to be completely at odds with their usual reasoning when it comes to immigration. They are suddenly all for economic protectionism and interference in the market.
Living on the border of the U.S., I feel a freer form of immigration, where people are treated as "documented immigrants" is a smarter and safer way to handle things.
You can track where people move, tax accordingly, and it keeps people from dying in the desert because they want to feed their families.
Posts
So if you own a giant industrial farm it really sucks that our government doesn't let more Illegal labor come over.
If the president had any real power, he'd be able to live wherever the fuck he wanted.
agreed. Anecdote inbound:
Yeah uhh, the UK has essentially a "if you can get here then we've got you covered" immigration policy. Apparently they'll set you up in an apartment large enough for your family, and then pay you to not work, and give free education to your kids. The result is 20 year old men and women pretending to be kids (fairly easy to do when there's no birth records, passports, driver's licenses, etc) to get a free base-level education and then exporting a portion of their government assistance back to family and friends in Bengal where a couple GBP goes a lot farther than it does in the UK. Or at least, that's a fairly typical situation in the inner-city schools according to my sister who taught English over there for a few years.
The fun part is that now there's a large enough proportion of the population acting like these (and I hate using the phrase, but) welfare queens that it's political suicide to support any kind of reform that fixes government assisted living. You'd be seen as a racist who just wants to kick out the foreigners.
Illegal immigrants (people who can get here) aren't entitled to benefits (for the obvious reason that they are here illegally and would be arrested and probably deported).
Asylum seekers are housed privately or through NASS, and receive a stipend of £36.62 a week (for a single adult), which would probably just cover your food costs. So "fixing" government assisted living wouldn't affect asylum seekers, because their system is separate. Neither group is legally allowed to work (asylum seekers are sometimes allowed to with special permission). Asylum seekers access to free education and healthcare is standard for anyone entitled to live in the country. A survey of 150 asylum seekers by Personnel Today in 2001 found that:
Migrant workers are possibly entitled to benefits depending on their country of origin, but they need a visa to come here (or be a citizen of an EU country).
When you say your sister taught English, do you mean she wrote for the Daily Mail? :P
Especially when prevailing unemployed is cyclical rather than structural. Certainly "immigration -> unemployment" is non-obvious, because immigrants buy things too.
I bet someone out there has already modeled it for me. Hm.
indian immigrants are the best thing to ever happen to the uk
They've certainly improved your cuisine
Not like in America, I don't want no imm'grants takin my hungry man frozen tv dinners
So, in your view, the only reasons that could count against elimination of the population of the Niger are essentially tactical, based on fear of repercussions from the world community?
I suppose this is something that one could believe--man's inhumanity to man and all that. I'm nonetheless somewhat surprised to see someone fess up to it in this day and age.
You "not having ethics to a large degree" is not a flaw with ethical reasoning. It's a flaw with you.
Hooray! Emotions are for the weak!
But it is not facts, though, ethical reasoning. Although I do care about poor people worldwide, I simply do not see how letting a bunch of them in would help us. I mean, if there are jobs that are not being filled due to only illegals wanting them, then employers should raise wages/benefits/working conditions, as Modern Man said. For example, the migrant workers picking the oranges in my state are virtually slaves (some of them are real slaves) and are taken advantage of by farmers/supermarkets. I would be happy to pay an extra 10 to 20 cents per tomato/orange/whatever in order to give the migrants some protections and benefits.
I don't think letting more people in so they could be taken advantage of by farmers, slaughterhouses, contractors, etc. is really the solution here.
Even assuming that they're being "taken advantage of" by farmers and the like, simply by doing it in America they would be making much more than they would in their country of origin. Simply by moving from one side of a border to the other, even if the work is the same, the migrant can make orders of magnitude more than in his or her country of origin.
That is, we get labor, the migrant gets a lot of money, and if the labor is legal, they get the protection and benefits without having to pay a premium for them. You say that they're "virtually slaves" here, but they're coming from conditions that are even worse.
I agree that this is a problem. But it was also a problem with racial integration, it's a problem with same-sex marriage.
Keep in mind also that this nationalist-racism is relatively new in human history, within the past 150 years or so. I think there's a xenophobic instinct hardwired into our psyche, but it's not intrinsically anti-"immigrant", and it's something that can be gotten over.
(1) Even Borjas has argued that immigrants' fiscal effect is small. It may even be positive:
The earliest studies on fiscal effects of immigration for the US yielded conflicting results. Passel and Clark (1994) calculated that immigrants paid $27b more in taxes than the benefi…ts they derived from the US social and education systems. By contrast, Huddle (1993) argued that immigrants represented an annual net cost of $40b in 1992. Borjas (1995a) criticized the earlier studies for making unreasonable assumptions. He estimated the net impact of immigration to range from a $16b cost to a $60b bene…fit depending on the assumptions made... In a later study, Borjas (2001) argued that the positive effects of immigration are created by improved labor market efficiency, with gains accruing to natives between $5b and $10b. More recent US studies have calculated that the average net cost or bene…fit of a single immigrant is very small.
(2) Again, it could be that people just don't want to move to flyover states.
(3) There are a range of options that don't necessitate a "large wave". Again, the evidence for wage-depression suggests that it's extremely small. Immigrants need to shop for food and clothing, live in houses too. To the extent that we're talking a lot of poor people, they'd largely be competing with other recent immigrants and people who haven't finished high school.
EDIT: Added italics.
A low wage worker cannot create more jobs than he occupies. If they could, there would be 0% unemployment right now, and employeers would be desprate for employees. You can see this is not the case.
A high wage earner can create more jobs than he occupies, but only if they are of lower wage. Adding more low wage workers cannot result in fewer unemployed people.
If there were perfect information being transmitted back to the home country, that might be the case, but there isn't always that, a lot of migrants are simply deceived as to the condition they are being sent to.
While perfect information isn't there, a lot of information is; most latin communities still keep the old relatives updated.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Not a practical consequence in sight, not a fact in evidence. And yet you they're the words that lay the foundation for your society.
This thread has some very, very odd lines of reasoning.
This would directly contradict the general observation that helicopter-dropping money on low-wage workers increases demand more than on high-wage workers in the short-run... you may be confusing between levels and margins. Employing a thousand low-wage workers at the margin, moving them from unemployed to employed, employs more than a thousand more people in the aggregate.
Adding workers does not increase the supply of money, every dollar a worker earns is a dollar removed from the system. In a perfect system, they would spend every dollar they earned, returning it to the system and exactly recreating the job they occupy. Since this is not a perfect system (as evidenced by the fact it is operated by humans), there is loss.
This is true, but not what we're talking about.
What we are talking about is adding new workers to a system that already has 9 or so % unemployment; And if adding those people creates as many jobs as it adds people who need jobs (or more).
Firstly, job creation can be a very slow thing. So in the short run, just dumping workers is going to increase unemployment. This make now a poor time to perform this action.
Secondly, it has been historically proven that an effective way to combat unemployment is to REMOVE large chunks of low income workers from the system. In the past, this has been known as "going to war". This is currently a weaker option as wars are currently fought more with money and less with troop lives.
It contradict the money drop not at all. BSoB is saying that filling a bunch of positions with sub-minimum wage labor, doesn't improve demand, as much as filling those positions at a higher wage. Basically, by depressing wages for these positions, illegal immigrant labor is the exact opposite of a money drop for the poor(especially because they repatriate excess money to their home countries, rather than spend it here). The owner of the business makes more money(money drop on the rich), while the employees make less(no money drop on the poor).
And while your right in aggregate, this isn't taking 1000 unemployed people and employing them. This is taking 1000 people who are neither employed or unemployed(as it effects the US economy), bring them here and filling 1000 positions with them. While there is some aggregate gain Its:
1) less than employing 1000 native workers into those positions
2) The lower wages and repatriation mean that the gain above 1000 positions will be lower than with native workers.
Now that may be countered by the extra demand created by cheaper groceries, giving more disposable income to everyone...but I have not idea yes or no one that.
And given the unemployment rate, it's not like he's going to fill a job that's been sitting empty due to a labor shortage.
Rigorous Scholarship
I can get an American haircut in Mexico? Can I buy an American house or rent an American apartment, too?
Except in the aformentioned places where there is a labor shortage that Americans aren't filling.
The availability of illegal labor has allowed certain industries to engage in a race to the bottom with regards to pay, benefits and worker safety. I really don't see how our national interests are served by allowing this type of thing.
Rigorous Scholarship
Except that wont work. With increased globalization these businesses have had to compete with overseas businesses which have far, far cheaper labor.
I saw a great example last weekend when my family and I went apple picking at a local orchard. People there were complaining about how expensive it was (nearly $100 or a family of four and $2.50/lb. for the apples you picked). But they are forgetting that the $.99/lb apples they buy at the grocery store were grown in China.
Minimum wage was a good idea before globalization, but until we can force a global minimum wage (ha!) it just cannot work in the United States any more.
Rigorous Scholarship
It's actually even worse than my "solution".
Also, heavy fines for outsourcing such labor. Nike should absolutely not be profiting from slave / child labor, and they absolutely are.
What you did here is make a good argument for why food stamps and economic assistance aren't really all that morally defensible on a grand scale. I mean, you conveniently left out the statement that would make your argument an actual complete argument - the statement that explains why it is right for those of us lucky enough to already be here to enjoy these benefits exclusively, and right for us to use our resources and force to keep others from them, or why it would be bad for people in other countries to dilute those benefits peaceably in their own interest.
And ironic that you open by calling the OP's last line a dick move, and then for your last line you say "that would retarded, just cuz, duh" instead of actually completing the argument you started to make.
We could make those pretty much for anyone, immigration doesn't really matter.
You mean a history of them fueling our successful world economy? Or the part where locals are mean to them? Because I'm not real sure anyone takes segregation as a serious answer to bigotry anymore.
And you realize of course that once an immigrant sets foot on U.S. soil, they are inside America. At which point you're splitting hairs between "geography of birth" and "color of skin," both being things one is born with and has no control over. Which brings us back to a more rational analysis of whether it's better to build higher walls, or just accept that many people have the will and the way to get here, and focus on how to integrate them and get the most benefit for all from them.
The cool thing about this argument is that it is inherently circular. If we opened up borders, the voters, the "American people," would not be the exact same group you are trying to speak for here. They'd be a group who benefitted a lot more from open borders than they were harmed by it.
Lol, I've never heard a nativist argument that wasn't pure-bred appeal to emotion.
Another example of circular reasoning. If the goverment let them come over, then doesn't that mean they're legal?
Their wages are artificially inflated. The value of their work on the global market is far below what they get for it. That sucks, but the imbalance works against us, and building higher walls is not an economically feasible solution. Trying to shove the market counter to its own natural inclinations, trying to stop wants from meeting needs at an equilibrium exchange, this eventually makes things overall worse for everyone, and tends to fail over time and require more and more drastic measures to keep up.
You want to stop illegal immigration? There are really only two ways: 1) make our economy and living standards equal to that of other countries, so there is no longer incentive, or 2) open the borders, so it is no longer illegal. Over the long term, something closer to #2 will work out better for us, IMO.
tl;dr: Eventually I hope a generation of Americans will realize that immigration is a part and parcel to the many positive things we've got going for us here. We've got a lot of space. A lot of resources. Immigrant labor has time and time again revitalized a waning and suffering working class here. The argument has been made for centuries that they take our jobs and ruin the lives of the more deserving native whites... putting aside the whiny arrogant bigotry of that, it has NEVER actually worked out that way anyway. The Dutch didn't destroy our economy. Or the Germans. Or the freed slaves. Or the Chinese. Or the Irish. Or the Mexicans. It was always screamed from the rooftops that they would, but things always just seemed to get even better instead.
Low-income Americans would prefer a safe workplace with a decent wage where the boss can't grope the cute female workers? Fuck that, we've opened the border and there are now millions of people from other countries willing to accept all the bullshit you can pile on them, because it's better than being poor in El Salvador.
You forgot option #3, though- pass laws that make life difficult for illegals, thereby encouraging them to self-deport, enact better border controls and punish employers for hiring illegals.
You're talking about a time where the country had a relatively low population, a frontier that needed to be tamed, a general labor shortage and/or was in the middle of industrializing.
That's not America today. Do we need immigrants with certain skills? Absolutely, and we can tailor our immigration policies to reflect that. But, no one can argue with a straight face that we have a shortage of unskilled labor today.
Rigorous Scholarship
You may wish to open your eyes and look around. Several local governments and certain members of federal agencies right now do everything they can to allow illegals, yet they remain "illegal".
But there is a definite cost involved in migration. People don't leave their homes on a whim. I'm not glorifying the migrant, I'm just saying that opening borders will allow those who want to make more connect with those who want to pay less. Even under your fallacious pessismistic economic view, this would only occur until the benefit wasn't worth migration, meaning things would still be better here than elsewhere. But historically, what really happens is that our ecomony just keeps getting better here for it, opportunities just keep evolving, and we just keep replenishing the lowest rungs of the working class with more immgrants whose lives are greatly improved by it. The waves of displaced or mistreated American workers never seem to materialize. Instead, they leverage their inherent advantage in language and resources and culture, combined with the cheap cost of labor, to build new businesses and industries and careers. Compar this to countries with stricter immigration policies who only seem to grow and grow the ranks of unemployed underskilled natives.
Unsafe workplaces and groping workers are crimes and not a matter we ought to try to address through economic protectionism. Though strict immigration control does certainly keep many workers away from the kinds of protections they ought to have. "Decent wage" is a relative moral judgment that much of the world would consider you indecent and arrogant for suggesting.
The point was that this option doesn't really exist. As a wise economist once said, you might as well pass laws telling the tides not to come in. If the measures you are suggesting actually succeed at improving the problems you imagine immigration creates, then those measures will have increased the incentives for immigrants, and the measures will have to be upped again. This is generally how all protectionsist economic practices tend to work. As I and many others have pointed out, take a look at those countries who do what you suggest, and look at their unemployment, or at their immigrants' cultural immersion, or so on.
And sadly someday I'm certain people will be equivocating about why Mexican immigration also had some unique factor going for it. I mean, all the arguments against immigration are the same as they were in each of the previous groups. Everyone said then what you're saying now, and were always wrong, for the same reasons.
Needing immigrants with certain skills is a distracting discussion that avoids the basics. If we need immigrants with certain skills, then we've really got a problem, because we ought to be at least as well equipped as any country in the world to create and incentivize skilled workers. I'd much rather listen to your arguments if you were telling me about how we should be teaching an unskilled native how to do that skilled job. Because if we did that, we've solved both problems, and we don't need to build walls or deport people.
You do realize that we deported a record number of people last year, right?
and "certain local governments" are mostly trying to avoid us turning into Mexico. It is really, really dangerous to have a large class of people that can't turn to the police for protection. Because then they turn to other methods. We have that too much already, and getting local police involved in immigration issues creates too much more of it.
Little known fun fact:
The L.A. gang culture first evolved in the 1930s as a response to white rednecks driving into black neighborhoods to beat, rape and murder the residents. The police wouldn't do shit, so gangs of armed black youths formed to protect their blocks.
Those gangs persisted, eventually turning to crime, dealing drugs and fully metastasizing into a national syndicate during the 80s crack epidemic. A lot of other criminal organizations have similar roots. Hell, the Costra Nostra was first formed as a security/police force in the chaotic collapse of feudalism in Italy.
So, yeah. Forcing ethnic groups to rely on themselves for protection the face of hostile or indifferent law enforcement has a long history of unwanted consequences.
Can I quote you on this the next time union busting comes up?
Yeah, conservatives tend to be completely at odds with their usual reasoning when it comes to immigration. They are suddenly all for economic protectionism and interference in the market.
You can track where people move, tax accordingly, and it keeps people from dying in the desert because they want to feed their families.