How serious is the problem of undocumented immigration?

[PyramidHead]

I don't understand the reasoning you are applying here.

The same reasoning he pretty much always applies. He's dismal. That's an allusion to economics being "the dismal science". And as some wag aptly put it, "People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics. The rest is commentary." What dismal is applying here is reasoning about the incentive structure that will result from various hypothetical immigration policies.

Why should immigrants, legal or not, be denied the benefits of living in a first-world country?

Turn it around. Why should citizens vote to tax one another to pay for benefits for immigrants if that taxation gives ever more foreigners an incentive to come and thereby leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of taxation and increased benefit costs?

Because foreigners pay taxes too. There are plenty of ways to structure an economy so that people on the bottom, including some immigrants from poverty-stricken nations, have enough economic mobility to become productive citizens. In turn, their productivity would fuel the assistance of the next generation of poor, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle of prosperity. It's no less feasible than your scenario, if we're talking hypotheticals. It only necessarily creates a drag if (a) our society doesn't care enough about the working poor to help accelerate their climb up the economic ladder, or (b) there is something inherent about being a 'foreigner' that makes a person less likely to become productive, assistance or not; hence my later question.

I don't understand the reasoning you are applying here. If an immigrant is working here, and working enough to support himself, then he isn't accessing the welfare state so what's your issue with limiting his access to it? Contrariwise, if he is not working here enough to support himself, but merely living here and spending here, then what makes you think there's really no way for him to not be productive? Are you claiming that living and spending are productive activities in their own right?

Firstly, the welfare state is not limited to government assistance to people who cannot support themselves. Public education, health care, infrastructure, etc. are all components. Maybe dismal was literally referring to welfare checks, but I took his comment to mean that if we allow immigrants to enter our country without restriction, they should be forced to attend schools no better than those in the slums they were trying to escape, while the true Americans would have the choice of going to actual American public schools.

Secondly, living in a country and spending money here are indeed productive in the sense that anybody who does so pays taxes. Plenty of people live here and spend here without doing much productive work here, and we don't deport them or restrict their access to any public services. Ideally, it would be better for everybody if they worked in a factory instead of being CEO of the company that owns it, but this is not a command economy.

What quality are they lacking that would make them eligible for the same benefits that everybody else receives? Just the fact that they broke a law?

"What quality"? Seriously? What makes you think this is all about them and their qualities?

Mostly Max saying that it's all about them and their qualities.

Suppose you give five dollars to a man on the street because he asks you to, and subsequently a hundred other men ask you to give them money. Do you feel you owe it to them to give each of them five dollars, because they're all eligible for it? If you don't keep paying and paying, what quality are the other men lacking?

(And no, welfare is not a benefit everybody else receives. It's a benefit some people receive and other people deliver.)

We disagree. Welfare is a benefit that is reaped by everybody, from the bottom to the top, regardless of whether they directly receive it. The people who 'deliver' get to live in a society with fewer sick, poor, and uneducated people. That means less crime, a more skilled workforce, and more opportunities for 'receivers' to become 'deliverers.'

 

[Jarhyn]

'They go to our schools'... And teachers are more in-demand, more jobs for American teachers exist, and all that money goes into American pockets, and people who are here are made to be less ignorant. So 'they go to our schools' is a win.

'They send money abroad' ... And our neighbors become more affluent. Places that were unstable third world shitholes get less awful. Fewer people there need to grow drugs and break kneecaps. That war spills into our borders less often.

International relations, interpersonal relations, development and improvement are not competitions. They are co-ops. There's no need to be adversarial about this shit.

 

[maxparrish]

Because foreigners pay taxes too. There are plenty of ways to structure an economy so that people on the bottom, including some immigrants from poverty-stricken nations, have enough economic mobility to become productive citizens. In turn, their productivity would fuel the assistance of the next generation of poor, leading to a self-perpetuating cycle of prosperity. It's no less feasible than your scenario, if we're talking hypotheticals. It only necessarily creates a drag if (a) our society doesn't care enough about the working poor to help accelerate their climb up the economic ladder, or (b) there is something inherent about being a 'foreigner' that makes a person less likely to become productive, assistance or not; hence my later question.

You keep making arguments on unstated assumptions that you have yet to prove. Why is it in our national interest to solicit immigrants without skills or abilities from poverty-stricken nations, invest hundreds of billions in making them somewhat productive, only to turn around and import more of the same? Of what benefit is it to those of us who are citizens and lived most or all of our lives as Americans?

Even if we ignored externalizations and fiscal impact, there is no net substantive benefit. ZERO. And if American society wishes to accelerate the 'climb up the ladder' for Americans then unskilled immigration is the perfect policy to harm such climbing. These immigrants compete with Americans in construction, factory jobs, etc.

As the only way to justify your policy is based on the assumption that the purpose of the United States is for its citizens to sacrifice their own well being and uplift the foreign poor, don't you think it overdue that you explicitly tell us that is your belief. And if not, then its time for you to tell us why you support US welfare for the worlds migrating masses.

... Contrariwise, if he is not working here enough to support himself, but merely living here and spending here, then what makes you think there's really no way for him to not be productive? Are you claiming that living and spending are productive activities in their own right?

...Secondly, living in a country and spending money here are indeed productive in the sense that anybody who does so pays taxes. Plenty of people live here and spend here without doing much productive work here, and we don't deport them or restrict their access to any public services. Ideally, it would be better for everybody if they worked in a factory instead of being CEO of the company that owns it, but this is not a command economy.

And we don't restrict their access to welfare (or deport them) because they are generally American citizens (or legal residents). They are members of the American people, they are in our social compact. Those outside the membership, outside the social compact, those who come to seek "benefits" from the American people have no claim. They have no more claim than if they squatted on your front lawn, and claimed that they have a right to become your dependent.

Hence why should the membership send its savings and income to those foreigners, regardless of where they live?

We disagree. Welfare is a benefit that is reaped by everybody, from the bottom to the top, regardless of whether they directly receive it. The people who 'deliver' get to live in a society with fewer sick, poor, and uneducated people. That means less crime, a more skilled workforce, and more opportunities for 'receivers' to become 'deliverers.'

As usual, you just keep restating an unproven assumption.

So wrong, welfare is NOT for everybody. It is a "benefit" that is reaped by those the government determines to be eligible. It is not "bottom to top" because it is based on income level, wealth, employment status, etc. The people who provide it get to live live with fewer sick and poor UNLESS their government imports more of the sick, the poor, and uneducated. And yes that does mean less crime and perhaps more opportunities for Americans to help one another.

You made a great argument against immigration.

 

[maxparrish]

Someone once noted that "Liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are stupid". In discussions of immigration, I can't think of any quip more illustrative. If you think you have seen everything in the world of unreason, you have not unless have argued with open border true believers. Statistics, facts, national interest, logic - all such considerations are out the window. As one fellow put it "I don't care how harmful it is, I can't deny the world's poor the right to come to the US". Ask them if that applies to 100s of millions or billions of them coming, and the the emotion based loop replays ..."I refuse to think about it, I can't deny...(blah blah)".

In other words, there is no argument that can convince the open borders person because, like fundi's, they have a faith based in a murky feeling, a "bad feeling" if they do what is in their own (or nations) rational self-interest. Such pathology, like any deeply felt 'truthie', is not influenced by reason. It does not seek to resolve conflicting goals, or illogical outcomes. "I FEEL" is the alpha and omega of argument.

Sad, but true.

 

[ksen]

Someone once noted that "Liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are stupid". In discussions of immigration, I can't think of any quip more illustrative. If you think you have seen everything in the world of unreason, you have not unless have argued with open border true believers. Statistics, facts, national interest, logic - all such considerations are out the window. As one fellow put it "I don't care how harmful it is, I can't deny the world's poor the right to come to the US". Ask them if that applies to 100s of millions or billions of them coming, and the the emotion based loop replays ..."I refuse to think about it, I can't deny...(blah blah)".

In other words, there is no argument that can convince the open borders person because, like fundi's, they have a faith based in a murky feeling, a "bad feeling" if they do what is in their own (or nations) rational self-interest. Such pathology, like any deeply felt 'truthie', is not influenced by reason. It does not seek to resolve conflicting goals, or illogical outcomes. "I FEEL" is the alpha and omega of argument.

Sad, but true.

Thought you were talking about the anti-Minimum Wagers there for a minute.

 

[maxparrish]

George Borjas, labor economist and considered the single most authoritative immigration economist (and an immigrant himself) stated in his review of the literature:

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low-wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves.

Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers. Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.

http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

In other words, US native-born workers lose about 400 billion a year, and US business owners gain about 435 billion a year. And this is without accounting for costs of crime, pollution, education, etc.

 

[arkirk]

The notion of a "closed border" is pure ridiculous. We have had one with Mexico for a long time and MILLIONS OF PEOPLE have poured across it. There is no law that can stop the migration of people who are under threat of violence or economic starvation. These vigilante "citizens" groups and the border patrol...are no match for an economic downturn on the side everybody seems to want to reach when it comes to slowing immigration. So just be poor and you won't have an immigrant problem. We are well on the way, considering how little we have respected our lands and our waters. Well, that covers it for the common man. Millionaires etc. will continue to live in a wonderland, a great city on the hill, no matter what. There is always Monte Carlo.

 

[PyramidHead]

You keep making arguments on unstated assumptions that you have yet to prove. Why is it in our national interest to solicit immigrants without skills or abilities from poverty-stricken nations, invest hundreds of billions in making them somewhat productive, only to turn around and import more of the same? Of what benefit is it to those of us who are citizens and lived most or all of our lives as Americans?

Even if we ignored externalizations and fiscal impact, there is no net substantive benefit. ZERO. And if American society wishes to accelerate the 'climb up the ladder' for Americans then unskilled immigration is the perfect policy to harm such climbing. These immigrants compete with Americans in construction, factory jobs, etc.

Your argument rests on there being a fundamental division between American and immigrant. If an immigrant competes with an American for a job, what's actually happening is two people are competing for a job. So, again, if you have a problem with extra people competing for a job then your issue isn't just with immigration, it's with population increase of any kind.

And we don't restrict their access to welfare (or deport them) because they are generally American citizens (or legal residents). They are members of the American people, they are in our social compact. Those outside the membership, outside the social compact, those who come to seek "benefits" from the American people have no claim. They have no more claim than if they squatted on your front lawn, and claimed that they have a right to become your dependent.

Spoken like a true native American. Which tribe are you descended from?

The proper "in-group" used to just be a man's family; what right do other families have to the fruits of his labor? Over time, families banded together into roving groups, and again it was a matter of defending the spoils of hunting, war, and successful agriculture from rival groups. With each expansion, everybody's quality of live has generally increased, even if the transition periods have been characterized by some hardship. Today, the in-group has become quite large, and there is nothing to prevent it from growing further. Eventually, the planet may be the only meaningful in-group. All along the way, there will be fear-mongering conservatives squabbling to preserve the status quo. They will die (you will die), and future generations will treat their memory with the same bemused curiosity and occasional cringe we reserve for black-face performers and end-time evangelists of every stripe. This is what I am trying to convey: you are not a substantial obstacle to this process.

 

[arkirk]

George Borjas, labor economist and considered the single most authoritative immigration economist (and an immigrant himself) stated in his review of the literature:

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low-wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves.

Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers. Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.

http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

In other words, US native-born workers lose about 400 billion a year, and US business owners gain about 435 billion a year. And this is without accounting for costs of crime, pollution, education, etc.

Immigrant laborers don't contribute anywhere near as much pollution as Big Business. We could solve much of the other problems with a minimum wage huh? But then...that would be socialism...We can't have that!

 

[maxparrish]

Your argument rests on there being a fundamental division between American and immigrant. If an immigrant competes with an American for a job, what's actually happening is two people are competing for a job. So, again, if you have a problem with extra people competing for a job then your issue isn't just with immigration, it's with population increase of any kind.

A too obvious strawman. I've already stated what the argument is, and it is not over two individual US citizens or legal residents competing for work in the USA. It is with the importation of unskilled labor to compete with US citizens for no other purpose that a) get a little cheaper labor for business owners, b) to give welfare to foreigners, c) to make like harder for American workers and d) to detract from our quality of life.

My argument is moored in a political reality that you pretend does not exist - the reality is that there is a fundamental difference between those who are citizens and members of the American people and those who are not...(for those who slept through their elementary school social science class its know as citizens of a "country" or "nation-state".)

The Declaration of Independence stated a common and universal human right for "a people" to treat themselves politically separate from another, to politically associate as a group for the purposes of mutually securing their own life and liberty. "...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." to lay governments "foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The Constitution of these United States of America underscores the right of a people to form their own union for themselves and their posterity:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What your argument is (assuming you even have one) remains unstated. No more dodging:

1. Do believe that people, such as Australians, Canadians, Cubans, or Venezuelans have a right to form a country for to protect their own interests? Yes or No.
2. Do you actually believe that the people of the (say) Ivory Coast have a moral claim on the wealth of the people Venezuela because 'their need is greater"?
3. Do you believe anyone, anywhere in the world, has a right to claim support from any other person and that person has a moral duty to provide it?
4. Do you believe you have a moral right to force your fellow citizens, or anyone else, to support the World's poor?

And we don't restrict their access to welfare (or deport them) because they are generally American citizens (or legal residents). They are members of the American people, they are in our social compact. Those outside the membership, outside the social compact, those who come to seek "benefits" from the American people have no claim. They have no more claim than if they squatted on your front lawn, and claimed that they have a right to become your dependent.

Spoken like a true native American. Which tribe are you descended from?

Spoken like someone who is attempting to hand wave with a rude personal query.

The proper "in-group" used to just be a man's family; what right do other families have to the fruits of his labor? Over time, families banded together into roving groups, and again it was a matter of defending the spoils of hunting, war, and successful agriculture from rival groups. With each expansion, everybody's quality of live has generally increased, even if the transition periods have been characterized by some hardship. Today, the in-group has become quite large, and there is nothing to prevent it from growing further.

What exactly are you flailing and poking at? Giving us a fuzzy and unsupported history of 'in-group' formation and expansion as "progress" may be your justification for imperialism and empire building, but it does not tell us anything about the efficacy of promoting the importation of unskilled labor.

However, it does illustrate your benighted view of history. In fact, "in-group" families, clans, tribes, and ethnic groups still exist. And such groups have demanded their own autonomy and, as such, we have seen the breakup of the British, Spanish. Portuguese, Dutch, German, Austrian, and Soviet Empires into separate nations, and even the division of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia into several separate nations. Contrary to your bizzaro world history, many peoples have chosen self-determination, a concept that vexes you. Today there are more separate and independent nations than anytime in history. This is not to be "regretted" except by power worshiping centralists.

Besides, be honest, don't you have a priority as a member of a group? Don't you value your spouse or children more than you value a Ubangi tribesman half way round the world? Do you really give your friends no more trust or consideration than that a stranger, or a drunk pinching you for a handout?

Eventually, the planet may be the only meaningful in-group. All along the way, there will be fear-mongering conservatives squabbling to preserve the status quo. ...

Only when Ming the Magnificent is ruler of the planet. What attracts you to massive centralized, all powerful state, only you can explain.

They will die (you will die), and future generations will treat their memory with the same bemused curiosity and occasional cringe we reserve for black-face performers and end-time evangelists of every stripe. This is what I am trying to convey: you are not a substantial obstacle to this process.

Nor am I a supporter of the destruction of the well being of my fellow citizens, a role you seem to relish. Or is this your way of retreating to the "right side of history" fallacy?

 

[Ford]

So you're an advocate for open borders. Got it.

Ya, try tell that to any working class Californian that has resided in California for the last 50 years - tell him how much their life has improved by the mass urbanization, increase in poverty rate to the highest in the country, high cost of living, and lack of affordable housing. Tell him/her how awefull it would have been if the 85 percent of the population growth had never happened, and if most of California were native born middle-class.

Visit LA County - with 40 percent of immigrant families on welfare, medicaid, food stamps, public housing BEFORE Obama waived work requirements.

First off, ya, tell it to Dismal. He's the one arguing (apparently) that illegal immigration and/or hiring isn't a problem. I'm saying that IF you think illegal immigration is a problem, THEN in order to deal with the problem you need to address that which brings the immigrant to this country:

Money.


If you really were such a staunch advocate for working class Californians, you'd have to have at least a little bit of a beef with the people who gave all those jobs to the immigrants in the first place.


It takes two to tango, Maxx. The illegal immigrant that journeys from Mexico or Central America is only half of the equation. Without a job waiting for them when they arrive here, and without the promise of continued employment if they should stay, these people would never have come and destroyed the lily-white middle class California you imagine once existed.

Every social and economic ill - real or imagined - that you so desperately want to lay at the feet of the dirty brown people can equally be laid at the feet of the employers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on a workforce comprised of people who crossed the border illegally.


But apparently nobody around here wants to talk about that.

 

[ksen]

max, I thought the illegals just took jobs lazy americans wouldn't do?

 

[maxparrish]

Ya, try tell that to any working class Californian that has resided in California for the last 50 years - tell him how much their life has improved by the mass urbanization, increase in poverty rate to the highest in the country, high cost of living, and lack of affordable housing. Tell him/her how awefull it would have been if the 85 percent of the population growth had never happened, and if most of California were native born middle-class.

Visit LA County - with 40 percent of immigrant families on welfare, medicaid, food stamps, public housing BEFORE Obama waived work requirements.

First off, ya, tell it to Dismal. He's the one arguing (apparently) that illegal immigration and/or hiring isn't a problem. I'm saying that IF you think illegal immigration is a problem, THEN in order to deal with the problem you need to address that which brings the immigrant to this country:

Money.


If you really were such a staunch advocate for working class Californians, you'd have to have at least a little bit of a beef with the people who gave all those jobs to the immigrants in the first place.


It takes two to tango, Maxx. The illegal immigrant that journeys from Mexico or Central America is only half of the equation. Without a job waiting for them when they arrive here, and without the promise of continued employment if they should stay, these people would never have come and destroyed the lily-white middle class California you imagine once existed.

Every social and economic ill - real or imagined - that you so desperately want to lay at the feet of the dirty brown people can equally be laid at the feet of the employers who spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on a workforce comprised of people who crossed the border illegally.


But apparently nobody around here wants to talk about that.

First, I regret if you took my 'ya tell it to...' to be specifically directed to you - it was intended for anyone who might be entertaining thoughts contrary to my own experience. I detect mixed stances in Dismal and perhaps your comments, so I am not trying to do anything other than state my experience.

Second, I have never defended employers who hire illegals and have always supported vigorious punishment for those employers who knowingly or recklessly hire illegals. Several years ago Hormel was caught having staffed most of its mid-western meat packing plants with illegals and they were rightly raided and hopefully punished. Since then, they hired citizens and legal residents.

You won't find me on the side of the Chamber of Commerce on this issue; one reason I speak derisively of "chamber of commerce Republicans".

Finally, the 'lily white' California was never lily white. I went to high school in Salinas, and we had our share of Hispanics who had been in the State for generations (including my own Uncle and his parents who were farmers). However, for anyone who grew up in California in the 1950s to 1960s, the State was exceptional. "California dreamin" came from the post-war discovery of a fantastic climate, plentiful and beautiful natural resources etc. And in those years the state was solidly middle class, education was cheap, housing costs average, and the quality of life exceptional. What are now elite and hyper-expensive towns and regions for the well heeled (e.g. Marin county) were as working and middle class as any other area (by the way American Graffiti was shot in Marin).

Today that no longer exists. It is a state bifurcated between the old enclaves of decent schools and safety with a very high cost, and 'the rest'...the 80 percent that make due in dubious and crappy areas. Ranch style homes that cost 33,000 in 1965, in some areas have escalated to 1,000,000.

The open borders nuts can piss on all the California native shoes they like, but no one who has lived her 30 or 40 or more years would ever tell you that the quality of life has improved because of massive population growth, or immigration...not unless their lives were miserable without yardmen, nannies, and enough Mexican restaurants.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Save your strawmaning for other posters. I'm consistently against neocon economic policies. I'm consistently against corporations. Its was disastrous to the native americans since they didn't repel European immigrants.

Do you really think that smallpox and influenza would kill a majority of modern Americans if immigration controls were removed? Or that the immigrants would be better armed then the current inhabitants, and engage in massacres? (it seems more likely to be the other way around). Or that the immigrants would bring with them an agricultural and industrial revolution that would radically alter land use and the way of life to which you are accustomed?

Modern immigration into developed nations brings more benefits than downsides.

Indeed. The European invasion of North America would be better compared to a space alien invasion than immigration today.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Someone once noted that "Liberals think conservatives are evil, and conservatives think liberals are stupid". In discussions of immigration, I can't think of any quip more illustrative. If you think you have seen everything in the world of unreason, you have not unless have argued with open border true believers. Statistics, facts, national interest, logic - all such considerations are out the window. As one fellow put it "I don't care how harmful it is, I can't deny the world's poor the right to come to the US". Ask them if that applies to 100s of millions or billions of them coming, and the the emotion based loop replays ..."I refuse to think about it, I can't deny...(blah blah)". .

Depends on your priorities and who and what you treasure I suppose. If you put your countrymen first, then I can see the argument against immigratino. If you count those poor starving Africans and South Americans as equals, then bringing them here isn't such a bad idea. They will do a little better here. Sure, the wealthy and even the not so wealthy folks here will suffer for it, but if you don't put them as your priority.... ya... it is a matter of perspective.

The net result may be to spread the poor out and make poverty and wealth less concentrated by nation. If that's good or bad depends on your point of view.

 

[EricK]

Depends on your priorities and who and what you treasure I suppose. If you put your countrymen first, then I can see the argument against immigratino. If you count those poor starving Africans and South Americans as equals, then bringing them here isn't such a bad idea. They will do a little better here. Sure, the wealthy and even the not so wealthy folks here will suffer for it, but if you don't put them as your priority.... ya... it is a matter of perspective.

Will the present inhabitants do worse though? Sure each immigrant increases the supply of labour, so bidding down the price of labour, but they also bring with a demand for other people's labour, thus bidding the price of labour back up. is there any reason the former effect should be more powerful than the latter?

 

[Canard DuJour]

Depends on your priorities and who and what you treasure I suppose. If you put your countrymen first, then I can see the argument against immigratino. If you count those poor starving Africans and South Americans as equals, then bringing them here isn't such a bad idea. They will do a little better here. Sure, the wealthy and even the not so wealthy folks here will suffer for it, but if you don't put them as your priority.... ya... it is a matter of perspective.

Will the present inhabitants do worse though? Sure each immigrant increases the supply of labour, so bidding down the price of labour, but they also bring with a demand for other people's labour, thus bidding the price of labour back up. is there any reason the former effect should be more powerful than the latter?

Yes : Immigrants from poorer countries who'll do the same job for less a) typically consume less/more cheaply, and b) defer consumption for back home, or send wages to family back home, where the money goes further due to differing currency values.

 

[dismal]

Are you suggesting that immigrants don't produce anything, or are unable to be educated to the point where they are productive? How much do hedge fund managers and corporate CEOs produce compared to people who work endless hours picking produce?

I'm not sure what is confusing for you.

I am for immigrants coming here and producing things. I am not for immigrants coming here and taking money for not producing things but consuming goods and services paid for by others.

Astonishingly, I fell more or less the same way about domestics.

 

[arkirk]

Youse gots yer choice....huge centralized government or huge centralized pollution dominated oligarchy. It is not a matter of whether we are "centralized" or not. What does matter is what we end up doing to the friggin planet. For my money, I would prefer a government devoted to fairness and environmental protection than one devoted to the wealth of a few. People seem to have different preferences and they seem unable to project accurately the consequences of their particular form of laisez faire. I think the problem is in the lazy thinking....maybe call it laisez cognitus. It seems to there is a point where the mind does not want to go so the so called conservatives just close their eyes and say, "I just wanna do what I wanna do...damn the torpedoes...full speed ahead." Perhaps they should get themselves into Gamblers Anonymous. Gambling...that is after all the primary raison de etre of Capitalism...not work, not production, not safety, not quality, not fairness,,,it is gambling. The language of capitalism is the language of addictive gambling...gambling that the aggregate of our environmental insults don't shut down nature's service to us all. That is where the fossil fuel and chemical farming industries have taken us...and we concern ourselves with a few brown people who are on one side or another of a line some politician drew in the sand. Illegal immigration is just an excuse our leaders make for the failure of our system of commerce to meet the peoples' needs.

This solipsistic state of mind comes from setting an arbitrary horizon on our vision when we are capable of thinking deeper into our problems. Whether it is a rich man or a poor man, whether it is a private organization or a public one, its effect on our society and environment, if not well considered has no chance of being harmonious and functional. If you ask yourself the question, "What if everybody did as I do?" Then you have asked the right question. I feel I live in a world where about everybody either does or desires to do as I know we should not do. Dubbiya, in his ignorance and hubris even managed to speak to some of the problems we face...addiction to oil....only sustaining that addiction and reaffirming our addiction as a need.

Our economic arguments for most of our industrial processes place actions and attitudes that are not compatible with our physiology yet meet some sort of dogmatic standard...a standard, Cornell West would call sin. I just say it is not my preference. If we aggressively begin to attack our environmental problems, there is room for the work of everybody. The limitations are in part due to a slowness in defining acceptable human functions and funding them. You can yammer till hell freezes over about freedom but nature only allows us freedom to behave ourselves. I don't know why that seems so hard for people to understand.

 

[bilby]

Youse gots yer choice....huge centralized government or huge centralized pollution dominated oligarchy. It is not a matter of whether we are "centralized" or not. What does matter is what we end up doing to the friggin planet. For my money, I would prefer a government devoted to fairness and environmental protection than one devoted to the wealth of a few. People seem to have different preferences and they seem unable to project accurately the consequences of their particular form of laisez faire. I think the problem is in the lazy thinking....maybe call it laisez cognitus. It seems to there is a point where the mind does not want to go so the so called conservatives just close their eyes and say, "I just wanna do what I wanna do...damn the torpedoes...full speed ahead." Perhaps they should get themselves into Gamblers Anonymous. Gambling...that is after all the primary raison de etre of Capitalism...not work, not production, not safety, not quality, not fairness,,,it is gambling. The language of capitalism is the language of addictive gambling...gambling that the aggregate of our environmental insults don't shut down nature's service to us all. That is where the fossil fuel and chemical farming industries have taken us...and we concern ourselves with a few brown people who are on one side or another of a line some politician drew in the sand. Illegal immigration is just an excuse our leaders make for the failure of our system of commerce to meet the peoples' needs.

This solipsistic state of mind comes from setting an arbitrary horizon on our vision when we are capable of thinking deeper into our problems. Whether it is a rich man or a poor man, whether it is a private organization or a public one, its effect on our society and environment, if not well considered has no chance of being harmonious and functional. If you ask yourself the question, "What if everybody did as I do?" Then you have asked the right question. I feel I live in a world where about everybody either does or desires to do as I know we should not do. Dubbiya, in his ignorance and hubris even managed to speak to some of the problems we face...addiction to oil....only sustaining that addiction and reaffirming our addiction as a need.

Our economic arguments for most of our industrial processes place actions and attitudes that are not compatible with our physiology yet meet some sort of dogmatic standard...a standard, Cornell West would call sin. I just say it is not my preference. If we aggressively begin to attack our environmental problems, there is room for the work of everybody. The limitations are in part due to a slowness in defining acceptable human functions and funding them. You can yammer till hell freezes over about freedom but nature only allows us freedom to behave ourselves. I don't know why that seems so hard for people to understand.

Er... Is this in the wrong thread? It doesn't seem to mention immigration (legal or otherwise) even in passing