Favorite Study of Open Borders Advocates Debunked: Immigration Reduces Wages

Of course it does. But it also lowers prices, increasing the buying power of consumers. It can also increase production and overall standard of living. Immigration can be a good thing in a free society.

Immigration today is largely a government program - whether you consider the welfare programs and other government programs that support them or the refugee programs that have brought millions into Europe and the US (edit: not to mention our foreign policy which created them in the first place). I don't support government programs.
 
Last edited:
Of course it does. But it also lowers prices, increasing the buying power of consumers. It can also increase production and overall standard of living. Immigration can be a good thing in a free society.

Immigration today is largely a government program - whether you consider the welfare programs and other government programs that support them or the refugee programs that have brought millions into Europe and the US. I don't support government programs.


That is eaten up by the increases in taxes, not to mention the effects it has in elections.

Maybe we should be importing people from the 3rd world.
 
Yes, so you do not favor importing the supports/recipients of welfare programs?

I don't favor the government programs that support them - I support Rand's plan of not allowing immigration from nations with radical Islam until we figure out what is going on. I support a better foreign policy that doesn't increase the risks related to radical Islam.

I understand we need to address the practicality of what happens in the mean time with our southern border and I'm ok with protecting the border. It's not my #1 issue and I don't think we need to go overboard, but it probably should be made more difficult to come here since we are giving away a bunch of free stuff to whoever comes. Then there's the cartels and all the other issues that come with the war on drugs and such. But there is a better way to deal with all of this that doesn't put border agents in danger - end the war on drugs and end the welfare state.

I don't support illegal immigrants voting, but I also don't really support anybody voting unless they are voting on something the all parties are voluntarily contracted to.
 
Last edited:
Of course it does. But it also lowers prices, increasing the buying power of consumers. It can also increase production and overall standard of living. Immigration can be a good thing in a free society.

Immigration today is largely a government program - whether you consider the welfare programs and other government programs that support them or the refugee programs that have brought millions into Europe and the US (edit: not to mention our foreign policy which created them in the first place). I don't support government programs.
or it increases profits for corporations and their sharebolders. But it also can be offset with increasing welfare and taxes to support. Do we need immigrants? What bad would happen if we severely limited immigration
 
Last edited:
Do we need immigrants? What bad would happen if we severely limited immigration

Who is we? I'm sure there are some people that are happy to have immigrants available.

What bad would happen? You and I will have to have our papers checked by the Gestapo wherever we go. Any company you or I want to work for will have to dig into our background to verify our citizenship. Any employee you ever have, you will have to dig into their background to verify their citizenship. Consumer prices will increase even faster than they already are. If you ever want to leave the country, especially with capital, good luck getting by the border guard.

A better question is, what good would happen? Well, the brown folks wouldn't be getting welfare benefits. Someone else would, but they wouldn't, so that's good right? Fewer Democrat voters? I'm sure a President Romney or McCain would have had this ship turned around by now. Too bad Bush couldn't have run for a third term, right?

And none of that even mentions the rights of people to travel on unowned property.

So, nothing good would come from keeping them out, and lots of bad would come of it. The only logical reason to argue for keeping them out is because you don't like them.
 
or it increases profits for corporations and their sharebolders. But it also can be offset with increasing welfare and taxes to support. Do we need immigrants? What bad would happen if we severely limited immigration

Wages would rise, millions would be able to climb out of poverty, without the every increasing demand for housing, food, goods, etc they would fall in price, money would go further, without a never ending flood of people from leftist nations and serf cultures the left will starve without a non ending way of low IQed people with no understand, value, or attachment to the nation, culture but vote for a welfare check and they will not not be able to turn America into a majority non white nation that will give them a one party nation.

So in short there is no down side at all. We have a more prosperous,freer, more secure nation.
 
Who is we? I'm sure there are some people that are happy to have immigrants available.


WEll we are not and we are done pay the burden.

What bad would happen? You and I will have to have our papers checked by the Gestapo wherever we go. Any company you or I want to work for will have to dig into our background to verify our citizenship. Any employee you ever have, you will have to dig into their background to verify their citizenship. Consumer prices will increase even faster than they already are. If you ever want to leave the country, especially with capital, good luck getting by the border guard.

And you do not have that now thanks to the Patriot Act which was passed due to the actions of immigrants?

No prices will decrease as demand will tapper off, plus automation prices will be even lower.

Aw yes the classic if you want to reduce immigration you have to live in a police state nonsense, please go on.

A better question is, what good would happen? Well, the brown folks wouldn't be getting welfare benefits. Someone else would, but they wouldn't, so that's good right? Fewer Democrat voters? I'm sure a President Romney or McCain would have had this ship turned around by now. Too bad Bush couldn't have run for a third term, right?

And none of that even mentions the rights of people to travel on unowned property.

So, nothing good would come from keeping them out, and lots of bad would come of it. The only logical reason to argue for keeping them out is because you don't like them.[/QUOTE]
 
Wages would rise, millions would be able to climb out of poverty, without the every increasing demand for housing, food, goods, etc they would fall in price, money would go further, without a never ending flood of people from leftist nations and serf cultures the left will starve without a non ending way of low IQed people with no understand, value, or attachment to the nation, culture but vote for a welfare check and they will not not be able to turn America into a majority non white nation that will give them a one party nation.

So in short there is no down side at all. We have a more prosperous,freer, more secure nation.

People will have more wealth but won't want houses and things like food and goods? What would they do with that money? If they have more money and spend that money, it increases demand for those things. Higher demand can drive prices higher.

Rising wages also drive prices higher. Higher wages an employer has to pay means higher costs of producing his goods. Unless he wants to make less money (and a business exists to make money), he is going to pass along the costs of those higher wages in the form of higher prices for the goods and services he produces/ sells. Higher prices for goods- not lower prices.

No minorities = no poor people? Did we have any time with no poor people? Anywhere?
No people with low IQs if there are no immigrants? Are all citizens smart? Maybe they all have PHDs?

Fantasy land which has never existed in any society- no matter how homogeneous it was.
 
Last edited:
Aw yes the classic if you want to reduce immigration you have to live in a police state nonsense, please go on.

What- again- is your plan to reduce immigration? How does it reduce the size of our domestic security system? How would you lower the number of them in the country? Cut the border patrols and INS in half? Do we ignore those already in the country unless they happen to be caught committing crimes?
 
Last edited:
Do we need immigrants? What bad would happen if we severely limited immigration

Besides the tyrannical nature of limiting immigration beyond it's natural free market flow, here's the big problem I have..

As an analogy, somebody turned on a fire hose. My solution is to simply turn off the fire hose. Your solution is to build an entire dam to contain all of the water.
 
People will have more wealth but won't want houses and things like food and goods? What would they do with that money? If they have more money and spend that money, it increases demand for those things. Higher demand can drive prices higher.

They will but the demand will be less as we have a stable population and the price of goods deceases. Higher demand is being drive by population growth that is fueled 85% by mass immigration.


Rising wages also drive prices higher. Higher wages an employer has to pay means higher costs of producing his goods. Unless he wants to make less money (and a business exists to make money), he is going to pass along the costs of those higher wages in the form of higher prices for the goods and services he produces/ sells. Higher prices for goods- not lower prices.

One word...Automation.


No minorities = no poor people? Did we have any time with no poor people? Anywhere?

Never said that, once again you lie. We had a falling poverty rate during the immigration moratorium during 1924-1965, after 1970 we started bring in the most uneducated, unskilled, poverty stricken people we can find which increase the poverty rates. We are now importing poverty where before we were only importing a set number of people who were highly skilled, educated and often wealthy.



No people with low IQs if there are no immigrants? Are all citizens smart? Maybe they all have PHDs?

When you take a large volume of people from the 3rd world, what do you think you will get? We have more then enough dumb people in America, why do we need to import more of them?


Fantasy land which has never existed in any society- no matter how homogeneous it was.

No, it did exist, it was not perfect no nation ever is but it was free, united, and prosperous, and it will be again, and if that means we have to reduce immigration as much or ore then they did in 1924, so be it, and if that means people like you whine about it and the 3rd world hates us, I can sleep soundly at night.


What- again- s your plan to reduce immigration?

Solutions to Illegal immigration
1. Secure the border with a Triple layer fence across the US/Mexican border
2. Prevent Amnesty at all costs
3. End birthright citizenship for non U.S Citizens.
4. End all welfare for illegals
5. Mandate E-verify for all jobs
6. Punish all business who hires illegal labor
7. Stop all funds for "sanctuary cities"
8. Remove the lowers courts from issues of immigration via Jurisdiction stripping





Reform and Reducing legal immigration
1. Greatly reduce and limit HB1 Visas
2. End the "family reunification" scam
3. End the "refugee" scam
4. End visa over stays by automation of the system.
5. End the "visa lottery" scam
6. End the immigration of non-comparable cultures to America
7. Cap the limit of immigration to America at 200,000 per year.

How does it reduce the size of our domestic security system?

Fewer people from terrorist supporting/causing nations/cultures means fewer of them that could attack us, with the expection of the Fort Hood shooter all Islamic terrorism has been caused by immigrants/"refugees".

With less of a need we can and will cut the size of the security needs, work to repeal the Patriot Act, and will not have to worry about Islamic Terrorism as it will not be able to spread into the United States.

How would you lower the number of them in the country?

Easy with a fence for the border, and have a set limit for each nation, some nations like in Europe will have a higher limit, and some nations like those of South America will have very, very lower, and some nations like in Africa/Middle East will have none at all for the most part.

Immigration does not just "happen" it is totally controllable".

Cut the border patrols and INS in half? Do we ignore those already in the country unless they happen to be caught committing crimes?


Well first is ICE, not INS, and no we might have to increase them, but still the cost of a fence and increased police is still many times cheap then the yearly cost of illegal immigration alone with is at least 140 Billion, never mind the cost of legal immigration and the human costs.

No, we give cops the power to ask for ID, pass national E vitrify, and maybe a nation SB1070 law, making it illegal to rent to illegals, they will leave and said laws will be repealed.

Besides the tyrannical nature of limiting immigration beyond it's natural free market flow, here's the big problem I have..

Yeah, a nation is more then a market place, you forget this.

As an analogy, somebody turned on a fire hose. My solution is to simply turn off the fire hose. Your solution is to build an entire dam to contain all of the water.


No, your solution is to allow the water to flood, and then whine when it destroys everything.
 
One word...Automation.

Replacing jobs and lowering wages.

Solutions to Illegal immigration
1. Secure the border with a Triple layer fence across the US/Mexican border
2. Prevent Amnesty at all costs
3. End birthright citizenship for non U.S Citizens.
4. End all welfare for illegals
5. Mandate E-verify for all jobs
6. Punish all business who hires illegal labor
7. Stop all funds for "sanctuary cities"
8. Remove the lowers courts from issues of immigration via Jurisdiction stripping

1) More government spending to build, maintain, and observe security along the fence.
2) Changes nothing- status quo
3) Doesn't change immigration
4) Illegals not eligible for welfare. Legals not eligible for first five years. Most come for jobs so no impact.
5) and 6) Need more government to check up on employers. Adds employers to government security aparatus. Adds costs to business- they have to either raise prices or cut wages/ hours for workers to pay for it.
7) What funds do they get now?
8) Reduce due process- limit rights

Well first is ICE, not INS, and no we might have to increase them, but still the cost of a fence and increased police is still many times cheap then the yearly cost of illegal immigration alone with is at least 140 Billion, never mind the cost of legal immigration and the human costs.

No, we give cops the power to ask for ID, pass national E vitrify, and maybe a nation SB1070 law, making it illegal to rent to illegals, they will leave and said laws will be repealed.

More expansion of government powers and intrusions on liberty for citizens. Not more liberty, smaller government.

You don't reduce government or increase freedoms by your proposals. Papers please!

Do you seriously think that once passed such laws would eventually be repealed "once the crisis passed"?
 
Last edited:
Replacing jobs and lowering wages.

Robots do not have kids, do not cost us a dime, do not commit any crimes, and will never vote for statism. Check fucking Mate.M

ore over it will create some jobs.


1) More government spending to build, maintain, and observe security along the fence.

Fence is cheaper, one time cost of 10 billion vs yearly cost 100 billion.

2) Changes nothing- status quo

We are still winning.

3) Doesn't change immigration

Removes incentives.

4) Illegals not eligible for welfare. Legals not eligible for first five years. Most come for jobs so no impact.

You are lying, again.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

5) and 6) Need more government to check up on employers. Adds employers to government security aparatus. Adds costs to business- they have to either raise prices or cut wages/ hours for workers to pay for it.

Still cheaper, after then can not work they will, system outlives its use and is defended.

7) What funds do they get now?

All the funds non sanctuary cites get.

8) Reduce due process- limit rights

Does not apply to non citizens.



More expansion of government powers and intrusions on liberty for citizens.

You don't reduce government or increase freedoms by your proposals. Papers please!

Do you seriously think that once passed such laws would eventually be repealed "once the crisis passed"?

How many translators, social workers, prison guards, etc will you have to hire after amnesty? You do understand the cost of illegal immigration is 100 billion plus a year and amnesty cots will be more then 7 Trillion, right? It is cheaper to deport then.

If they are not sent home they will out vote you, they will vote for the far left and they will strip you of your rights, and expend the goverment without end.

The fact you do not see this threat does not mean the threat does not cease to exist.

You offer nothing because you do not value Liberty, you would rather fall on the sword of moralism then stab the enemy with it, you are proof that open borders/mass immigration Libertarians are self destructive and have to be stopped as their actions are undermine the goals and preservation of Liberty.
 

Actually you are the one lying.

Article does not say illegal immigrants get federal government aid. It says "immigrant families" which it defines as any family with at least one foreign born parent. That is not necessarily here illegally. It also counts a family with one foreign born parent who has become a citizen as an "immigrant family". It counts a "family" as "being on welfare" if at least one person gets a benefit. Kid gets subsidized lunch at school- everybody in the family is counted as on welfare.

It includes immigrants who have become naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, those on short-term visas and undocumented immigrants.

And she said many benefits counted in the study are going to U.S.-born children of immigrants, skewing the findings even more.

About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit,

but so are 52% of native-born households with children

How does one come up with offering amnesty (not arresting/ deporting people already living here, working and paying taxes) end up costing $7 trillion- twice the entire government spends in a year?

http://business.time.com/2013/05/10/the-made-up-numbers-dominating-the-immigration-debate/

The Made-Up Numbers Dominating the Immigration Debate
 
Last edited:
Actually you are the one lying.

Article does not say illegal immigrants get federal government aid. It says "immigrant families" which it defines as any family with at least one foreign born parent. That is not necessarily here illegally. It also counts a family with one foreign born parent who has become a citizen as an "immigrant family". It counts a "family" as "being on welfare" if at least one person gets a benefit. Kid gets subsidized lunch at school- everybody in the family is counted as on welfare.


Trying to move the goal posts...Not working.
 
No- you did. You want to preserve freedoms and liberty by reducing them. You want to reduce government spending by expanding it.
 
No- you did. You want to preserve freedoms and liberty by reducing them. You want to reduce government spending by expanding it.

Immigration is not a freedom, nor a right, you fail to understand how mass immigration reduces freedom.
Remember the Patriot Act? How did we get that again?

You do understand if made life so bad for the illegals they would go home, thus they would not have to pay the costs of illegals, a wall is cheaper then illegal immigration, yet you think spending any money is bad.

Are strike me as a person that does not want to pay to have is pipes fixed because it "costs too much" but is ok with paying for the water damage/mold, and whine about how awful the house is rather the spending some money to stop the flood of water.

Sounds like a great analogy.
 
Back
Top