How serious is the problem of undocumented immigration?

[maxparrish]

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?

First, contrary to Jolly's comments, the economic benefits and costs to unrestricted low and no skill immigration is as follows:

Benefits to immigrants.
Benefits to employers of immigrants.
Costs to low skilled unemployed and employed residents.

The overall all effect on the economy is almost negligible. The immigrants gain substantial benefits. The employers of immigrants (and to a much smaller extent users of their services) gain about 400 billion. However domestic workers lose 400 billion in income per year, estimated to be about 5 percent per year is wage reduction... (this analysis does not include the effects of dumping 5 million legit workers on the market, as Obama will/has done).

So, for example, after Obama grants legalization to 5 million low skilled illegals, they will flood the open market to compete with jobs for Americans and legal residents. Given their skill level and legalization, expect the 5,000,000 to displace and drive down the already low wages for a huge number of current truck drivers, factory workers, construction workers, and service industry workers. Those who do not displace them, will join the ranks of newly displaced on welfare, housing, food stamp, and medicaid - waiting for their government check.

In an economy that is barely within the range of 'full employment' (6 percent), and which has an absurdly high real unemployment rate of 12.6 percent, dumping 5 more million 'legit' low skilled and very low skilled immigrants into the economy is about destructive for Americans as it comes. It Obama's goal is to keep Americans unemployed, drive down wages, increase the size of the underclass, and make business owners happy he has done a bang up job.

And if it is to attract 10s of millions more to drive down wages further, and create a huge underclass, he can pat himself on the back. Its the perfect anti-American worker policy. And its perfect for making life more difficult for the Chicago neighborhoods he once represented as a "community organizer" and church goer.

Obama, a President of non-America.

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

First, contrary to Jolly's comments, the economic benefits and costs to unrestricted low and no skill immigration is as follows:

Benefits to immigrants.
Benefits to employers of immigrants.
Costs to low skilled unemployed and employed residents.

The overall all effect on the economy is almost negligible. The immigrants gain substantial benefits. The employers of immigrants (and to a much smaller extent users of their services) gain about 400 billion. However domestic workers lose 400 billion in income per year, estimated to be about 5 percent per year is wage reduction... (this analysis does not include the effects of dumping 5 million legit workers on the market, as Obama will/has done).

So, for example, after Obama grants legalization to 5 million low skilled illegals, they will flood the open market to compete with jobs for Americans and legal residents. Given their skill level and legalization, expect the 5,000,000 to displace and drive down the already low wages for a huge number of current truck drivers, factory workers, construction workers, and service industry workers. Those who do not displace them, will join the ranks of newly displaced on welfare, housing, food stamp, and medicaid - waiting for their government check.

In an economy that is barely within the range of 'full employment' (6 percent), and which has an absurdly high real unemployment rate of 12.6 percent, dumping 5 more million 'legit' low skilled and very low skilled immigrants into the economy is about destructive for Americans as it comes. It Obama's goal is to keep Americans unemployed, drive down wages, increase the size of the underclass, and make business owners happy he has done a bang up job.

And if it is to attract 10s of millions more to drive down wages further, and create a huge underclass, he can pat himself on the back. Its the perfect anti-American worker policy. And its perfect for making life more difficult for the Chicago neighborhoods he once represented as a "community organizer" and church goer.

Obama, a President of non-America.

and then maybe they'll get pell grants, go back to school, and get real jobs. Oh, that's right, the douchepublicans want to eliminate public education too. You play a nice GAME at LOOKING like you care about those poor American workers, but when the time comes to actually help them improve their station and the standard of living for everyone everywhere, will you put your money where your mouth is?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

First, contrary to Jolly's comments, the economic benefits and costs to unrestricted low and no skill immigration is as follows:

Benefits to immigrants.
Benefits to employers of immigrants.
Costs to low skilled unemployed and employed residents.

The overall all effect on the economy is almost negligible.

Earlier in the thread, you gave numerous economic reasons why immigration was a drag on the economy. Now you contradict those claims with that statement.

The immigrants gain substantial benefits. The employers of immigrants (and to a much smaller extent users of their services) gain about 400 billion. However domestic workers lose 400 billion in income per year, estimated to be about 5 percent per year is wage reduction... (this analysis does not include the effects of dumping 5 million legit workers on the market, as Obama will/has done).

You assume that the immigrants displace domestic workers. And this assumption is valid because.....?

 

[Jarhyn]

First, contrary to Jolly's comments, the economic benefits and costs to unrestricted low and no skill immigration is as follows:

Benefits to immigrants.
Benefits to employers of immigrants.
Costs to low skilled unemployed and employed residents.

The overall all effect on the economy is almost negligible.

Earlier in the thread, you gave numerous economic reasons why immigration was a drag on the economy. Now you contradict those claims with that statement.

The immigrants gain substantial benefits. The employers of immigrants (and to a much smaller extent users of their services) gain about 400 billion. However domestic workers lose 400 billion in income per year, estimated to be about 5 percent per year is wage reduction... (this analysis does not include the effects of dumping 5 million legit workers on the market, as Obama will/has done).

You assume that the immigrants displace domestic workers. And this assumption is valid because.....?

This is kind of a red herring. It doesn't matter if low skill workers get displaced, if we then turn around and educate them. Their restlessness, like the restlessness of most working people, will drive them to exert pressure on the world around them in socially useful ways. So if we open the doors of higher education to them, life will get better. For everyone. There's an endless supply of high skill work to be done, in furthering science and human knowledge.

 

[maxparrish]

First, contrary to Jolly's comments, the economic benefits and costs to unrestricted low and no skill immigration is as follows:

Benefits to immigrants.
Benefits to employers of immigrants.
Costs to low skilled unemployed and employed residents.

The overall all effect on the economy is almost negligible.

Earlier in the thread, you gave numerous economic reasons why immigration was a drag on the economy. Now you contradict those claims with that statement.

The immigrants gain substantial benefits. The employers of immigrants (and to a much smaller extent users of their services) gain about 400 billion. However domestic workers lose 400 billion in income per year, estimated to be about 5 percent per year is wage reduction... (this analysis does not include the effects of dumping 5 million legit workers on the market, as Obama will/has done).

You assume that the immigrants displace domestic workers. And this assumption is valid because.....?

As you have not bothered to quote my prior statements, which you claim I contradicted, I won't bother to argue against an unsupported characterization.

And, by the way, is it not common sense that once a prior illegal becomes legal, he/she will compete for jobs with existing workers? You don't think, for example, when a contractor has a building project is some low skilled job categories the newly legalized will now compete with domestic workers of equal skill? You don't think the newly legalized will become contract drivers, displacing some portion of current domestic drivers?

As seen in the construction industry in certain states, the prospect for domestic American workers is dim - in fact, if you don't speak Spanish in California it is very dim. And as we have also seen, in industries where illegals were cleared out (e.g. meat packing) domestic workers replaced them.

So ya, these illegals will compete with American workers and displace many of those workers who are currently unemployed.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

To explain the unlimited-immigration mentality, none of those are plausible hypotheses. There appear to be three purposes: (1) a few libertarians' principled non-initiation of coercion against would-be immigrants, (2) a few political strategists' attempt to get more Democrats elected by changing the country's demographics, and (3) a great many people choosing to accept the beliefs their ideology equates with being a good person, in order to give themselves permission to think well of themselves. This is a classic case of what Thomas Sowell calls "Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy".

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Are you suggesting that the native Americans popularly called White, Black and Asian Americans are somehow less truly native Americans, and/or somehow have less right to a say in who is allowed to immigrate, than the native Americans popularly called Native Americans?

 

[PyramidHead]

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

Are you suggesting that the native Americans popularly called White, Black and Asian Americans are somehow less truly native Americans, and/or somehow have less right to a say in who is allowed to immigrate, than the native Americans popularly called Native Americans?

I'm saying that Max keeps assuming "members of the American people" is an absolute category, when as you rightly point out, the definition of American is fluid and changes throughout the generations. If we tweak the laws, the set may grow or shrink. There is nothing essential or inherent about being American.

 

[SimpleDon]

I am far behind in this discussion. Excuse me for dredging up old posts.

We agree. I am curious to hear from people on the other end of the spectrum about this.

Specifically, what is wrong with being an illegal immigrant other than the fact that it violates a law?

The same thing that is wrong with legal immigrants, they generally harm (rather than improve) the well-being of resident Americans.

These are pretty much exactly the same arguments that I use and agree with to raise the minimum wage and to limit globalization and off shoring.

Immigration, especially illegal immigration, is not based on knowledge, skills, or natural ability. It is based on family connection, ...

Pretty much the same arguments that I make to increase the inheritance taxes to decrease the intergenerational transfer of money and the power and influence that it brings.

... illegal entry, and arbitrary 'needs' for the business community to hire the cheapest possible labor.

... arguments for the minimum wage increase and limiting off shoring, again.

1. They lower wages for the least skilled Americans, and dilute opportunity for their apprenticeship.

... minimum wage again.

2. They increase the violent crime rate.
3. They use an ordinate amount of public welfare.

I am not sure that these two are correct. Illegals do whatever is required to maintain a low profile. This includes not applying for welfare and not committing crimes.

4. They have to be subsidized by American citizens, paying a good part of their medical, housing, and education.

They do use the emergency rooms when they absolutely have to. But isn't this the Republican/conservative ideal of medical care for the indigent? As in "they can always go to the emergency room." And don't conservatives prefer not to pay for care for the poor through taxes but rather through the much more expensive option of increased medical costs?

5. They generally do not pay for themselves in economic surplus, and certainty do not contribute a surplus.

They come here to work. They work hard for low wages, this is the main problem. This is pretty much the definition of adding economic value. A lot of them do send as much of their wages home as they can, limiting the economic impact of their own wages. But this is a function of their situation. There are a lot of legal immigrates and H1B1 visa guest workers who do the same. It doesn't seem to be as much an argument against illegals as it is against immigration in general.

6. They create major externality costs in environmental degradation, increased urbanization, demand for water in drought stricken states, crowding of parks, beaches, etc.

If you think there is a shortage of freeway crowding, ghettos, Mexican restaurants, dry wallers, and house-keepers then perhaps illegal immigration is a good thing. If you are a working class American or urban American minority it is a bad thing.

They do meet a demand for labor, a demand that is not being met in this country without them. So this is valid to the degree that it causes unemployment among our citizens and legal residents, the xenophobic and racist snark aside of course.

But surely you recognize that maintaining a high level of unemployment is one of the Republican and conservative methods of suppressing wages to increase profits and the incomes of the wealthy to achieve the economic goal of providing more financial capital available for investment to increase jobs. Whatever it is that you call it, neoliberal economics, supply side economics or Reaganomics.

The problem is an 11.

As you can see I generally agree with you. We should be taking care of our nation's own first, not exporting our jobs and financial capital to other countries.

But while I am being consistent in applying these principles to decide my positions across the board, you seem to be developing your principles as required to support your positions, even when you have to contradict yourself from one discussion to another. Just saying.

 

[SimpleDon]

And if they were not illegal and there was unrestricted immigration, that would be a problem also, at least in the beginning.

And what problem would that be?

And, assuming immigration laws are designed to prevent that problem why aren't illegal immigrants causing it?

I don't see the problem being that they are illegal. If it were it could be solved by repealing the law that makes it illegal. But it won't. The law that makes them illegal is never enforced. It is not what the illegals fear. They are afraid of being deported, not of being convicted and fined for violating a law that is only a class 3 misdemeanor, one category less serious than a speeding ticket.

Deportation doesn't depend on the misdemeanor law. Immigration law provides for deportation even if the person hasn't violated any laws. In fact, that is the reason that no one is ever charged with the crime of entering the country illegally. If they were charged with violating the law it would only delay deportation, which is possible without a conviction and which is the more serious result compared to the $200 or so fine for the misdemeanor conviction.

 

[maxparrish]

....As you can see I generally agree with you. We should be taking care of our nation's own first, not exporting our jobs and financial capital to other countries.

But while I am being consistent in applying these principles to decide my positions across the board, you seem to be developing your principles as required to support your positions, even when you have to contradict yourself from one discussion to another. Just saying.

We agree that we ought to only concerned with our own, we disagree with what policies do that. You frequently claim that what I argue is the "same" as what you have argued on other issues, without bothering to explain how that is so, or provide supporting evidence. Moreover, it is clear you don't really understand that my points are about all general immigration (legal and illegal), nor do you understand what I mean about "contributing economic surplus" as understood in immigration/labor economics. I am not even sure you know what an externality is.

I am too busy to respond to highly fractured posts that make irrelevant objections to every sentence written. If you wish me to explain your error, please reply as an acutal 'argument', not as mini quips about "it is the same argument I use on blah blah".

 

[bilby]

....As you can see I generally agree with you. We should be taking care of our nation's own first, not exporting our jobs and financial capital to other countries.

But while I am being consistent in applying these principles to decide my positions across the board, you seem to be developing your principles as required to support your positions, even when you have to contradict yourself from one discussion to another. Just saying.

We agree that we ought to only concerned with our own, we disagree with what policies do that. You frequently claim that what I argue is the "same" as what you have argued on other issues, without bothering to explain how that is so, or provide supporting evidence. Moreover, it is clear you don't really understand that my points are about all general immigration (legal and illegal), nor do you understand what I mean about "contributing economic surplus" as understood in immigration/labor economics. I am not even sure you know what an externality is.

I am too busy to respond to highly fractured posts that make irrelevant objections to every sentence written. If you wish me to explain your error, please reply as an acutal 'argument', not as mini quips about "it is the same argument I use on blah blah".

Or in other words, 'I have no rebuttal, so I will pretend to be too stupid to handle the layout of your post, in the hope that nobody will notice that I haven't made any effort to address it'.

Or perhaps you really are to stupid to handle arguments presented point-by-point?

 

[fromderinside]

Just saying.

Some saying!

Basically, I agree that we should be taking care of our own.

On the other hand, I see my own as mankind and after that life. Obviously not what you believe. We're in this little game called fitness. Anything that furthers that is fair game to support. For instance groups degrade environments more quickly than do individuals. Industrial societies degrade environments faster than do agrarian societies than do hunter-gatherer societies than do distributed individuals (speaking from the level of civilization).

Since we live in an industrial society transitioning to an information society we are at a unique place where we have more supply than essential demand and we are able to reduce being production to levels that are more in concert with what the rest of life can sustain.

Seems to me that migration will continue until groups are at essentially the same level of productivity. Humanistic programs of training and immigration management should be a transitional apparatus that ultimately gives way to open migration as productivity equalizes and stabilizes. We need to find a way out to this economic competition paradigm in which we fine ourselves. We are competitive beings so we need to replace market competition/ We can do this with something that orients more toward information and understanding and away from things.

So from my point of view the only serious thing about immigration is the violence such creates in those who insist that things are good and people are suspect.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

What I find particularly telling about attitudes like Max's is that around half of the illegal immigrants did not arrive in the US via the Mexican border. They generally flew here on airplanes with various types of VISAs, then didn't leave. Something like 9% are Asian. Another 6% from European countries. It always makes me wonder why the people who are the most vehemently anti-immigrant only talk about Mexicans.

 

[Sabine Grant]

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.

What I find particularly telling about attitudes like Max's is that around half of the illegal immigrants did not arrive in the US via the Mexican border. They generally flew here on airplanes with various types of VISAs, then didn't leave. Something like 9% are Asian. Another 6% from European countries. It always makes me wonder why the people who are the most vehemently anti-immigrant only talk about Mexicans.

Not just Mexicans, but also,

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...nted-immigration&p=86660&viewfull=1#post86660

No, I am saying that immigration of those that do not create an economic surplus, and are a net economic loss, has been a bad thing. There is a good argument for encouraging the selective immigration of individuals of ability, education, and skills. In general, the immigration of Hindus, Chinese, Vietnamese, Europeans (and the Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth) has been a good thing. So have been Cubans and a few others.

On the other hand, Mexicans, Central Americans, many Southern Americans, Africans, and many Muslims have been a bad thing. These groups in part, or as a whole, are afflicted with lower IQs, poor skills, primitive beliefs, criminal tendencies, etc. In particular, the 45 million Hispanics that have been created in the last 45 years has lowered the well being of many Americans, and created a costly underclass.

Noting the " afflicted with lower IQs, poor skills, primitive beliefs, criminal tendencies etc...". Noting also the similarities of the statement above with Jason Richwine's babbling regarding Hispanics :

http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/08/her...-will-have-low-iq-children-and-grandchildren/

 

[RavenSky]

Cubans aren't Hispanic! Who knew! And they are an acceptable brown-skinned person! My daughter will be sooooo relieved.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

What I find particularly telling about attitudes like Max's is that around half of the illegal immigrants did not arrive in the US via the Mexican border. They generally flew here on airplanes with various types of VISAs, then didn't leave. Something like 9% are Asian. Another 6% from European countries. It always makes me wonder why the people who are the most vehemently anti-immigrant only talk about Mexicans.

I am unsure what is "telling" to you, given that I am well aware that historically 40 to 50 percent of illegal immigration has come form visa overstays, in contrast to illegal border entry. And those of us 'most vehemently anti-immigrant' talk about Mexicans because Mexico is biggest source of illegal immigration, currently comprising nearly 60 percent of all illegals in the US. And another 25 percent are other Latin Americans (primarily Central Americans).

The only thing 'telling' might be why someone thinks a mere 15 percent ought to merit equal concern over the 85 percent.

 

[maxparrish]

Cubans aren't Hispanic! Who knew! And they are an acceptable brown-skinned person! My daughter will be sooooo relieved.

Oh yes, Cubans are Hispanics, although only a fraction the 45 million in America. But they have been shown to be a net plus because the Cuban diaspora to America has predominately been the middle-class and upper class refugees fleeing Communism. As such, their average intellectual gifts and talents were far higher than that of the Cuban population as a whole. And considering that even currant Cuba is 72 percent European in genetic ancestry (and the diaspora even more so), it is not surprising they are a group that is far more like the white European American average than other Hispanics.

Of course, the Mexican and Central American diaspora has not been nearly as selective, nor is the root stock as blessed in European genetics. The fact that only a very small percentage of these legal and illegal immigrants are middle and upper class, the ability level of such folk is significantly below the white American average.

 

[Ford]

Of course, the Mexican and Central American diaspora has not been nearly as selective, nor is the root stock as blessed in European genetics. The fact that only a very small percentage of these legal and illegal immigrants are middle and upper class, the ability level of such folk is significantly below the white American average.

"Blessed in European genetics."


Careful, Max...your white hood is showing.

 

[maxparrish]

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...nted-immigration&p=86660&viewfull=1#post86660

No, I am saying that immigration of those that do not create an economic surplus, and are a net economic loss, has been a bad thing. There is a good argument for encouraging the selective immigration of individuals of ability, education, and skills. In general, the immigration of Hindus, Chinese, Vietnamese, Europeans (and the Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth) has been a good thing. So have been Cubans and a few others.

On the other hand, Mexicans, Central Americans, many Southern Americans, Africans, and many Muslims have been a bad thing. These groups in part, or as a whole, are afflicted with lower IQs, poor skills, primitive beliefs, criminal tendencies, etc. In particular, the 45 million Hispanics that have been created in the last 45 years has lowered the well being of many Americans, and created a costly underclass.

Noting the " afflicted with lower IQs, poor skills, primitive beliefs, criminal tendencies etc...". Noting also the similarities of the statement above with Jason Richwine's babbling regarding Hispanics :

http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/08/her...-will-have-low-iq-children-and-grandchildren/

Why yes, great minds do think alike. But his "babbling" in his dissertation earned him a Phd from Harvard. From the link:

“The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations,” he wrote. “The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.”

- - - Updated - - -

Of course, the Mexican and Central American diaspora has not been nearly as selective, nor is the root stock as blessed in European genetics. The fact that only a very small percentage of these legal and illegal immigrants are middle and upper class, the ability level of such folk is significantly below the white American average.

"Blessed in European genetics."


Careful, Max...your white hood is showing.

I thought 'hoodies' were a good thing.