OBAMA TO GRANT IMMUNITY TO YOUNG ILLEGALS

[erowe1]

1) you're completely ignoring the concept of a "nation state" in your analysis of "a society"

So?

2) why keep arguing the strawman about central planning?

That's what this is all about. Should we let the free market decide who works where? Or should we let government (i.e. central planners) do that?

 

[Origanalist]

The three people who liked my post understood it fine. You were complaining about all the illegals working as maids, construction workers, etc.

If you can't compete in the workforce with someone who doesn't even speak our language and isn't even a legal citizen then there is something wrong with you.

There is nothing wrong with me, I always have and always will be able to compete. I now own my own company and am continuing to add to my equipment and prepare for more business. But why do I have to compete against people who do not have to follow the same rules as I do?

I think there is something wrong with THAT.

The three people who liked my post understood it fine

What is this, a grade school popularity contest? You're a silly man.

 

[smartguy911]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-poll/story?id=16602880

Sixty-four percent of them — and 66% of independents, the frequently up-for-grabs voters thought to decide elections — support the president's decision. The White House has forcefully (and rather implausibly) denied that Obama sought political gain from his announcement. But as recently as March 2011, he had said publicly that he lacked the power to halt such deportations.

The Bloomberg survey found that just 30 percent of likely voters disagreed with the president's plan. Fifty-six percent of likely Republican voters opposed it, while 86% of Democrats supported it. Just 26% of independents sided with the Republican majority in the poll.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obama-immigration-shift-hit-voters-poll/story?id=16602880

Sixty-four percent of them — and 66% of independents, the frequently up-for-grabs voters thought to decide elections — support the president's decision.

If that statistic is true, it's just a matter of the fact that they have framed it as an "it's for the children" issue.

And what would Americans think if the question was turned in the opposite direction. Say that an American gets a job in Switzerland or Japan. They take their ten year old child with them. Five years later, they get transferred back to the US. Does that child now have the right to become a citizen of that country where they lived for five years?

My guess is that a much smaller percentage would say that their child deserves citizenship in that other country.

 

[Origanalist]

It's 2 pages...Forbes magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0...ation-opening-borders-mexico-let-them-in.html

The videos at Reason and articles (and books) at CATO will give you access to an abundance of studies. Even the border hawk economists agree "illegals" add more to the economy than they take away via government programs and tax evasion...they find other reasons to oppose immigration (usually cutlure war stuff, because most of them admit immigration is condusive to economic growth and there is no negative correlation, let alone causation, between native wages, native unemployment rates, and native poverty rates and immigration levels...as you'll see in that article, American wages GREW during our greatest periods of immigration because of the competition in the free labor market). Much of economics (and libertarianism in general) is is counter intuitive, but deductively logical.

I finally found the time to get to your link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mexican construction workers, for instance, , as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people )."

Um.....Why wouldn't American construction workers " as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart "?

"Nor do immigrants depress wages, since they rarely compete directly with native-born Americans for jobs."

Absolute horseshit.

"When in 2004 Poles were given the option of moving to Sweden--which has the most generous welfare state on earth--or to Britain and Ireland, which denied Poles access to any benefits until they had worked for a year, less than 1% opted for Sweden."

What were their job prospects is Sweden?

"America, too, could deny immigrants access to welfare initially."

Aint gonna happen, wishfull thinking.

"Opening up to eastern Europeans gave Britain a big boost. Growth soared. Unemployment fell. Wages continued to rise. Newcomers paid much more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services."

Proof?

"Allowing people to move freely is not just a matter of economic self-interest. It is also a moral imperative: Freedom of movement is a basic human right that should not be denied to people less fortunate than ourselves. Since migration is inevitable, far better that it be safe and legal. A pipe dream? That's what people once said about abolishing slavery."

That's a fine sentiment, as soon as the government quits giving them my property, I'm on board.

By the way PI, I much appreciate your civil responses.

 

[ProIndividual]

I finally found the time to get to your link.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mexican construction workers, for instance, , as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart ( WMT - news - people )."

Um.....Why wouldn't American construction workers " as well as spencreate jobs for Americans selling building materialsding their wages at Wal-Mart "?

"Nor do immigrants depress wages, since they rarely compete directly with native-born Americans for jobs."

Absolute horseshit.

"When in 2004 Poles were given the option of moving to Sweden--which has the most generous welfare state on earth--or to Britain and Ireland, which denied Poles access to any benefits until they had worked for a year, less than 1% opted for Sweden."

What were their job prospects is Sweden?

"America, too, could deny immigrants access to welfare initially."

Aint gonna happen, wishfull thinking.

"Opening up to eastern Europeans gave Britain a big boost. Growth soared. Unemployment fell. Wages continued to rise. Newcomers paid much more in taxes than they took out in benefits and public services."

Proof?

"Allowing people to move freely is not just a matter of economic self-interest. It is also a moral imperative: Freedom of movement is a basic human right that should not be denied to people less fortunate than ourselves. Since migration is inevitable, far better that it be safe and legal. A pipe dream? That's what people once said about abolishing slavery."

That's a fine sentiment, as soon as the government quits giving them my property, I'm on board.

By the way PI, I much appreciate your civil responses.

The point is those immigrants create more jobs than they take, net....not that Americans couldn't also hold those jobs for more money and cause a slightly lower employment rate for the economy.

All studies show they do not compete directly with natives for jobs. The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do, or are jobs that would not exist if we did them (because the cost of labor added to the product/service at the point of sale would price the product/service out of the consumer preference range, thereby making the very business employing us impossible to operate at a profit - bankruptcy occurs as oppose to employment). Immigrants simply rarely compete with Americans directly for jobs...they compete indirectly, because their labor is so unskilled. How many "illegal" immigrant engineers do you see? Soctors? Lawyers? How about CEOs? Skilled manufacturers? Most end up in rural farm work or construction...jobs that require very few skills or have a short learning curve with a great many skills involved (like carpentry only takes a few years to "learn" - although that's different from being a master carpenter, admittedly - and yet it is a highly skilled type of labor). So no, the studies show that isn't horseshit. It's common misconception that they compete directly in most cases with natives for jobs.

It's interesting you ask what their job prospects were in Sweden...since that very question proves the point. See, they move to GET JOBS, not get welfare in 99% of cases. This number (90+%) jumps out at nearly every study done on the subject. Welfare is not a major draw for immigration, or they'd have gone to Sweden, was the point. To move you have to save up money to travel and relocate (or to leave your family with living expenses until you can send some back), which shows an already keen work ethic. This is why most people who immigrate to other countries are not "welfare Queens". No one directly subsidized their move either, so they have shown an ability to manage money. So, as to your question, employment in Europe was relatively close in all the countries of destination...but the pay was better or employment rates were slightly higher in nations they chose to go to. Again, this shows they come to work, and in doing so add to the economy in NET. Also this shows something else...when you look at that study closer (I have), they never follow the immigrants in the 1% who went to Sweden...which means we don't know the entire 1% that did go there even went there for welfare at all! Many could have had job opportunities there, and judging by the stats, it's at least a safe logical assumption that some did in fact go to Sweden and didn't get on welfare. You asking the very question you did is smart...but think about why you even asking that helps my side of the free market debate going on between us.

The nations that deny them welfare have done so effectively...we could do it. If you think that is wishful thinking, then why isn't more drastic change like return to the Constitution not just wishful thinking and useless to do? Of course passing one simple law on preventing immigrants from receiving social services is easily possible, enforcable, and takes away that incentive so many immigration hawks think draw so many immigrants (which isn't actually true anyways, but to ease your minds). Hence the poll I keep linking people to in the thread I started...we can deny them benefits easily enough with one simple law, for X years after they enter. I leave the value of "X" up to you.

Proof is in studies they should link to in the article...but you can look up the proof yourself on google or bing images. Just use search words pertaining to each nations name and the category (like France unemployment rates 2004" for example). Do the same for wages, etc. Do you really think the article is lying? Or do you really not know how to research online? I'll assume the latter for the sake of this debate, and to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm really suprised it wasn't linked to, or referenced at least, in the article...I could of sworn it was originally...but maybe not...it's been a while since I first read that article...a couple a years maybe? You can easily enough look up the data yourself, either way, if you think they're lying to you over at Forbes Magazine.

And if you want them to stop getting your property (I assume you mean tax dollars via social programs), then pass the law that stops that. It's one very simple law that is easily enforced, as demonsrated in other countries. It's easier to track illegals when not so many of them exist. And I notice you didn't deny the ethics in that quote, which is good...but notice the SAFE part. The migrants come anyways...we clearly can't stop them without East/West German style wall with men with machine guns willing to kill human beings posted at all times...and who wants to support that tyranny? Murder? No one I hope...so then, how can we better secure the borders from terrorism, violent criminals, and people with bad diseases? Via simply letting them in legally with no quotas after passing that very simple law I suggest on social services. Then, we can easily find and deport the few that here illegally with violent pasts, diseases, or are linked to terrorism. They'll be the only ones sneaking in! Everyone law abiding will just simply stand in line, get their background check and medical exam and then come in legally. Wouldn't you? It's illgocal to risk your life crossing the desert when you don't have to....so almost no one would do it except those not allowed in for good reasons. Not allowing them in now creates an unsafe and broken border where no one can keep track of which immigrants pose a threat, and which are here to work. This creates easy cover for the problem people.

All in all, it's economically better for us all, smarter security-wise, and better morally to let these people in legally. If you hope to stop them from coming in without a wall, guns, and murder by soldiers, I'd say that's a dream. If that is what you want, I say that's tyranny. As Ron says, the wall built to keep others out will be used eventually to keep you in. The only way to effectively police the problem is to allow them in legally. And if you want to stop them from getting welfare, even though the studies show they receive in far less than native rates, and don't come here for it, but come to work...then just pass a simple law already proven effective in countries that hate immigrants far more than we'll ever think about hating them (some of the countries with that law actually have some very shallow gene pools from inbreeding for generations...seriously, look it up).

 

[Origanalist]

All studies show they do not compete directly with natives for jobs

I'm sorry, but that is just so far from reality it's not even worth debating. PI, I love your passion, and believe it or not we're not that far apart.

Maybe I'm just older and jaded, but I do not believe that if you knock down the barriers to immigration somehow the government will magically stop giving them benefits

 

[liberdom]

I'm sorry, but that is just so far from reality it's not even worth debating. PI, I love your passion, and believe it or not we're not that far apart.

Maybe I'm just older and jaded, but I do not believe that if you knock down the barriers to immigration somehow the government will magically stop giving them benefits

Not magically, they may inevitably stop due to overwhelming debt and burden.

as for what he said

All studies show they do not compete directly with natives for jobs. The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do, or are jobs that would not exist if we did them (because the cost of labor added to the product/service at the point of sale would price the product/service out of the consumer preference range, thereby making the very business employing us impossible to operate at a profit - bankruptcy occurs as oppose to employment). Immigrants simply rarely compete with Americans directly for jobs...they compete indirectly, because their labor is so unskilled.

It's ok to generalize immigrants when it favors your argument, isn't it? If conservatives started out saying that, everybody would cry RACIST, COLLECTIVIST, BIGOT.

"The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do" That is true to an extent, because Americans have benefits which keep them from being forced to work low wage, low skilled jobs, that includes social security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance and minimum wage. All these make it harder for an American to have to work for minimum wage or lower. Immigrants did not cause this, they are definitely taking advantage of it no less.

 

[Origanalist]

Immigrants did not cause this

No, they didn't. It's just part of what we have allowed to destroy what we had.

 

[liberdom]

No, they didn't. It's just part of what we have allowed to destroy what we had.

Agreed.

And adding immigrants definitely won't solve it. Unless destroying something so you can buy a new one is the plan. I just wanted to point out that while immigrants are far from harmless and innocent, they do indeed deserve not to be completely scapegoated for everything.

 

[ProIndividual]

I'm sorry, but that is just so far from reality it's not even worth debating. PI, I love your passion, and believe it or not we're not that far apart.

Maybe I'm just older and jaded, but I do not believe that if you knock down the barriers to immigration somehow the government will magically stop giving them benefits

No it's actually not...because the studies study reality. You have your experience, which is called anecdotal evidence. So do others...the combined sum of all these experiences is what is relative in an economy. You'll find a very low percenatge of native jobs are taken by illegal aliens or immigrants in general. Economics is NOT a zero sum game.

 

[ProIndividual]

Not magically, they may inevitably stop due to overwhelming debt and burden.

as for what he said


It's ok to generalize immigrants when it favors your argument, isn't it? If conservatives started out saying that, everybody would cry RACIST, COLLECTIVIST, BIGOT.

"The jobs they fill are often jobs we refuse to do" That is true to an extent, because Americans have benefits which keep them from being forced to work low wage, low skilled jobs, that includes social security, food stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance and minimum wage. All these make it harder for an American to have to work for minimum wage or lower. Immigrants did not cause this, they are definitely taking advantage of it no less.

Again its not genralizing to go by the actual factual numbers. Most (the vast majority) of immigrants are from countries with lower rates of education, literacy, and skilled labor. Skilledl abor comes from developing or develpoed economies, not out of thin air. You have to have massive carpentry to create a class of people who do this job as skilled labor enough to be skilled workers in that craft. Countries where people live in shambles don't havbe that. Most immigrants come from poorer countries and worse economies. They are more likely illiterate or functionally so, and morel ikely to be unskilled in most cases.

I love how people call anything "collectivist" they disagree with despite reality.

Hey, most Americans speak English. Now I'm a language collectivist!

If it's true, and can be proven, it is not collectivist to say MOST of anything is under a category. Collectivism is lumping ALL into one category, or saying MOST when the studies do not show it to be true.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that...you told me in PM that free markets are a religion (not based on facts)....

 

[liberdom]

Again its not genralizing to go by the actual factual numbers. Most (the vast majority) of immigrants are from countries with lower rates of education, literacy, and skilled labor. Skilledl abor comes from developing or develpoed economies, not out of thin air. You have to have massive carpentry to create a class of people who do this job as skilled labor enough to be skilled workers in that craft. Countries where people live in shambles don't havbe that. Most immigrants come from poorer countries and worse economies. They are more likely illiterate or functionally so, and morel ikely to be unskilled in most cases.

I love how people call anything "collectivist" they disagree with despite reality.

Hey, most Americans speak English. Now I'm a language collectivist!

If it's true, and can be proven, it is not collectivist to say MOST of anything is under a category. Collectivism is lumping ALL into one category, or saying MOST when the studies do not show it to be true.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that...you told me in PM that free markets are a religion (not based on facts)....

Whose definition did you use when you say "collectivism says ALL, if I say most, it's not collectivist"?