Richards 0
Recommended Posts
Richards 0
QuoteThank you, for that. I really do appreciate it. Well said!
Chuck
Thank you,
Cheers
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
One category have applied through the legal channels and met the criteria to immigrate by demonstrating they have the skillsets to complement the US job market with a positive net effect. The other for some reason or another have elected to skip applying through the appropriate channels, which begs the question about their suitability for immigration in the first place.
The difference between the two amounts to a lottery because there is artificial restriction on who may enter. It is a rational choice for illegal immigrants to pursue life and employment here, even though they face additional risks, due to the economic advantages to both them and us.
Quote
You are refering to an era that had no economic similarity to now.
It was substantially different then because it experienced enormous growth due to an influx of working citizens.
The differences you cite are artificial, you along with the protectionists, and those fearful of competition assume that the workforce is immutable, which is utterly false.
Quote
We also did not have a large social service/welfare system at the time so those who did come would have a plan to make it on their own without using up resources, or find their way back home if things did not pan out here. This is not the case today.
And on balance they give back more than they take, except for a short transitioning window, assuming they are granted citizenship. When they are not granted citizenship, the costs are slight. Not to mention that the reason we provide public services like healthcare is that they provide a social benefit. It is meaningless to only consider the costs in a vacuum.
Quote
Today we need human intellectual capital, not old labour skills.
The enormous markets for day laborers, farm hands, etc defy you. Have you not turned on a television for the past 5 years? Most of our job growth is projected to be in unskilled fields (iirc per the Department of Labor). Things like home care as our population ages.
Quote
Do you just say this stuff because it sounds inflamatory? How on earth can seeking to ensure that immigration policies are adhered to make one anti-immigrant?
The policies themselves are anti-immigrant, that's how. They are artifacts of an isolationist and racist era from our past, and they do neither our present nor our future citizens any justice.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
mnealtx 0
Some tidbits from the 1995 Senate testimony of the Chairman of the U.S. Commision on Immigration reform:
Snipped from http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/032995.html
QuoteFour points in our report call for special attention. First, we need improved border management. The Commission calls for a strategy of prevention of illegal entry and facilitation of legal ones in the national interest. The concept is simpler, of course, than its achievement. The Commission was highly impressed with the border operations in El Paso that aim to prevent illegal entry. It is far better to deter illegal immigration than to play the cat and mouse game that results from apprehensions followed by return followed by re-entry. To accomplish a true deterrence strategy will require additional personnel as well as a strategic use of technology and equipment. We will also require new measures of effectiveness because apprehensions alone cannot measure success in preventing illegal entries. Our goal should be zero apprehensions-not because aliens get past the Border Patrol but because they are prevented entry in the first place.
While we tighten our control over illegal entry, we must also reduce the long waiting times at our ports of entry. It is ridiculous that people with legitimate border crossing cards feel it is more convenient to cross illegally than go through our ports of entry. But that is the case. Our own delegation waited for one and one-half hours to cross from Juarez into El Paso-and this wasn't even at rush hour. In an age of NAFTA, we must do a better job of handling the legitimate border travel. The Commission supports the development of a land border user fee whose resources would be used to open more lanes, add more inspectors and, if necessary, more ports of entry to speed this traffic.
Our second set of recommendations would reduce the magnet that jobs currently present for illegal immigration. We have concluded that illegal immigrants come primarily for employment. The Commission believes that we need to enhance our enforcement of both employer sanctions and labor standards. But, to make employer sanctions work, we must improve the means by which employers verify the work authorization of new employees. The Commission believes the most promising option is a computerized system for determining if a social security number is valid and has been issued to someone authorized to work in the United States. We are pleased that the Administration has endorsed our recommendations in this area, and we look forward to working with INS and the Social Security Administration on the design of pilot programs that will phase in and test this new verification approach. I urge this committee to provide the funding needed to develop the computerized system and implement the pilot programs.
Third, the Commission urges greater consistency in our immigration and benefits policies. We believe that illegal aliens should be eligible for no public benefits other than those of an emergency nature, in the public health and safety interest, and constitutionally protected. On the other hand, we urge the Congress to retain for legal immigrants eligibility for our safety net programs. The United States screens legal immigrants to determine if they will become public charges, but unforeseen circumstances-deaths, illnesses-occur. The Commission does not want to see individuals whom we have invited to enter become vulnerable when such situations arise. On the other hand, the Commission strongly supports efforts to make our public charge provisions work. We do not want the U.S. taxpayer to bear a burden when there is a sponsor in this country who has pledged to provide support for an immigrant. The affidavits of support signed by sponsors should be legally binding, and the provisions for deportation of those who do become a public charge-for reasons known prior to entry-should be strengthened.
The Commission also made recommendations regarding impact aid for states and localities experiencing the fiscal effects of illegal immigration. We believe the federal government has a responsibility in this area. The first responsibility is to control illegal entries; the second is to help states and localities with their fiscal problems. However, we are skeptical of some of the data used to calculate these fiscal impacts. At present, the Commission believes that the data to support reimbursement of criminal justice costs are sound and we urge immediate reimbursement of these costs. We are not prepared to make such a recommendation regarding medical and education costs. We also urge that any impact aid provided require appropriate cooperation by states and localities in the enforcement of immigration policy.
Our fourth area concerns the removal of criminal aliens. The Commission supports enhancement of the Institutional Hearing Program that permits the federal government to obtain a deportation order while criminal aliens are still serving their sentences. Once the sentence is over, it is far easier and less expensive to remove the alien after an IHP proceeding. The Commission also recommends further negotiation of bilateral treaties that will permit deportation of criminal aliens to serve their sentences in their home countries.
Snipped from http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/032995.html
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Richards 0
Quotedue to the economic advantages to both them and us.
What advantages?
Quoteyou along with the protectionists, and those fearful of competition
There you go again. You know nothing about me yet presume to lump me in with protectionists fearfull of competition simply because I dare have an opinion that differs from yours. I have argued against protectionist policies that prevent skilled immigrants from making a relatively seamless transition into their feild upon moving here as this mitigates any gains to be had by skilled immigration. I am also not anti-immigrant yet you presume to imply that I am simply because I make the distinction between legal vs illegal immigrants. I believe immigration laws should be adhered to and will not apologise for that, nor will I be put on the defensive by those who will play the race card just because I do not blindly accept something that is wrong in the name of political corectness. Again this is a weak straw man argument based on hysteria rather than sound reason.
QuoteAnd on balance they give back more than they take
I am not sure where you are getting this. When you are working illegally you are not paying taxes, you are undercutting the labour market, and utilizing social services which you are not paying for (since you are not paying taxes). Even most pro-immigration economists acknowledge this fact.
QuoteNot to mention that the reason we provide public services like healthcare is that they provide a social benefit. It is meaningless to only consider the costs in a vacuum.
But if more people are using it than are paying taxes then there is a net loss. This is compounded by the fact that they displace domestic workers who then add to the problem by utilizing services at a higher rate (while not paying taxes since they are unemployed).
QuoteThe enormous markets for day laborers, farm hands, etc defy you.
Enormous? So enormous that we can't even afford minimum wage and thus require illegal labour? Doesn't sound like enormous demand.
QuoteHave you not turned on a television for the past 5 years?
Not very often. I do not like TV.
QuoteMost of our job growth is projected to be in unskilled fields (iirc per the Department of Labor). Things like home care as our population ages.
Again I think we are looking at starkly different studies. In Canada (which I suspect is rather similar to America economically speaking), with the exception of the oilsands in Alberta where they require a large influx of labour, all of our expected growth is in high tech, communications etc. This is reflected in the fact that so many youth simply have no choice but to seek post secondary education lest they face intermitent employment at low wage the rest of their lives. Hell even an undergrad degree is often not enough these days.
QuoteThe policies themselves are anti-immigrant, that's how. They are artifacts of an isolationist and racist era from our past, and they do neither our present nor our future citizens any justice.
Again you have not backed this up with an argument as to why you say this. How is our policy racist (be specific)? I realise that if I wanted to paint my face and go on a rent-a-crowd protest screaming something for dramatic effect your comment would sound very cool but it is unstantiated.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Quote
Enormous? So enormous that we can't even afford minimum wage and thus require illegal labour? Doesn't sound like enormous dema
Econ 101. Demand exists only at a price. Change the price and you are not looking at the same quantity any more. See price elasticity of demand.
***
Again I think we are looking at starkly different studies. In Canada (which I suspect is rather similar to America economically speaking)
[/qute]
Troll. Good night.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>The difference between the two amounts to a lottery because there is
> artificial restriction on who may enter.
Yes. Just as there is an artificial restriction on who is allowed in your house, where you are allowed to jump, where you can land your airplane, where you can drink and drive, where you can shoot your gun etc.
>It is a rational choice for illegal immigrants to pursue life and
>employment here, even though they face additional risks, due to the
>economic advantages to both them and us.
That may well be true. It may also be a rational choice for a thief to rob you and burn your house down; his arson may allow him to escape without detection, and thus better feed his family, and let you collect the insurance money etc etc. Does that mean we should accept his choice as a good one? Or should we try to stop people like that?
>The policies themselves are anti-immigrant, that's how.
As we have an incredible number of immigrants here, that is provably untrue.
>They are artifacts of an isolationist and racist era from our past, and they
>do neither our present nor our future citizens any justice.
Again, if we had no/few immigrants here, your statement might make sense. But since we are pretty much all immigrants, doesn't make much sense. We DO allow a lot of people to immigrate here.
If someone proposed a law that let more people (people who wanted to work here) enter the country legally, I'd be all for that. Until then, I'll consider illegal aliens criminals. They may still be nice people who just want to work and help us etc etc, but they are also criminals who have broken our laws - and must accept the consequences of their actions if they are caught.
> artificial restriction on who may enter.
Yes. Just as there is an artificial restriction on who is allowed in your house, where you are allowed to jump, where you can land your airplane, where you can drink and drive, where you can shoot your gun etc.
>It is a rational choice for illegal immigrants to pursue life and
>employment here, even though they face additional risks, due to the
>economic advantages to both them and us.
That may well be true. It may also be a rational choice for a thief to rob you and burn your house down; his arson may allow him to escape without detection, and thus better feed his family, and let you collect the insurance money etc etc. Does that mean we should accept his choice as a good one? Or should we try to stop people like that?
>The policies themselves are anti-immigrant, that's how.
As we have an incredible number of immigrants here, that is provably untrue.
>They are artifacts of an isolationist and racist era from our past, and they
>do neither our present nor our future citizens any justice.
Again, if we had no/few immigrants here, your statement might make sense. But since we are pretty much all immigrants, doesn't make much sense. We DO allow a lot of people to immigrate here.
If someone proposed a law that let more people (people who wanted to work here) enter the country legally, I'd be all for that. Until then, I'll consider illegal aliens criminals. They may still be nice people who just want to work and help us etc etc, but they are also criminals who have broken our laws - and must accept the consequences of their actions if they are caught.
Richards 0
QuoteEcon 101. Demand exists only at a price. Change the price and you are not looking at the same quantity any more. See price elasticity of demand.
Clap clap clap. Let me know when you finish reading the book.
QuoteTroll. Good night.
Always a pleasure to engage in intellectually stimulating conversation with interesting individuals like yourself who provide such compelling counterarguments.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Then it is outlawed. For the time being it is not outlawed. We do not live under a tyranical regime, so as with any democracy we have to accept that we may not always be happy with the laws, but we have to abide by them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites