California Spends $21 Billion Annually to Support Undocumented Immigrants

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is time for tariffs. It is also time to start tracking all avenues money is leaving the the united states and tax all money exiting the United States. Intelligence would point to a need to close the border with Mexico and prohibiting all flights to Mexico. I see no reason to even allow one american to visit mexico. Close the border both directions.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Actually having them produce materials using their lower wage DOES make it more efficient in an economic sense, it's the comparative advantage of high population, low skill places like China, Vietnam, etc, their rich endowment of labor factors.

What you are basically arguing against is free trade. There has been a huge quantity of literature written about free trade, and the general consensus (as much as there is one in economics) is that free trade increases the GDP of all parties involved more than it costs them. It also DOES increase unemployment in sectors where trading nations have a comparative advantage over us, but it is a net positive to our economy. There's an interesting book about this topic from both a historical and comparative policy perspective that you might be interested in called "Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century". It's all about the pluses and minuses of free trade, and it's pretty easy reading. (true, the author shares my perspective, but I think even if you don't agree with him he presents things in a pretty evenhanded manner)

This is generally why economists promote free trade policies for nations as a whole, to grow GDP, but also endorse social safety nets in order to retrain and catch the losers in the process in order to preserve social stability and to increase factor mobility. This is actually one of the main problems with modern conservative ideology in my opinion, they are trying to increase free trade while dismantling social safety nets.

Once you have offshored, or imported cheap labor for, all of the blue collar jobs what employment do you suppose people without degrees will find? We only need so many people to be walmart greeters.

Do you think that we are going to be a nation of only white collar jobs while still being able to afford all of those safety nets?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,585
50,769
136
Once you have offshored, or imported cheap labor for, all of the blue collar jobs what employment do you suppose people without degrees will find? We only need so many people to be walmart greeters.

Do you think that we are going to be a nation of only white collar jobs while still being able to afford all of those safety nets?

You will never be a nation of entirely white collar jobs, because a large number of blue collar jobs can't be outsourced. (are you going to drive your car to China to have it fixed?)

Again, if you want to be against free trade that's fine, but if you are for it you will get outsourced labor. That's part of the deal.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,585
50,769
136
It is time for tariffs. It is also time to start tracking all avenues money is leaving the the united states and tax all money exiting the United States. Intelligence would point to a need to close the border with Mexico and prohibiting all flights to Mexico. I see no reason to even allow one american to visit mexico. Close the border both directions.

Uhmm, do you know how insane that is? Hello Smoot-Hawley. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act

I see two reasons to 'let' Americans visit Mexico.
1.) They want to.
2.) Mexico is awesome.
Have you ever been there? It's a great time.

The lowering/elimination of tariffs is one of the few things that nearly all economists agree is a good idea.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
You will never be a nation of entirely white collar jobs, because a large number of blue collar jobs can't be outsourced. (are you going to drive your car to China to have it fixed?)

Again, if you want to be against free trade that's fine, but if you are for it you will get outsourced labor. That's part of the deal.

You skipped over the "import cheap labor" part which is exactly what this thread is about.

No I can not drive my car to China to get it fixed nor can I outsource the construction of my house or business but I can get those things done much cheaper by hiring illegal immigrants. So a ton of jobs that we have left are taken by "cheap imported labor" or illegal immigrants, what is left for the blue collar Americans?

This is about the combination of "free" trade and illegal immigration, talking about only one of those does not make the other go away.

Even though this is completely irrelevant to the thread, free trade isn't half bad when the parties play by the rules. That is not what is currently happening though.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
It's part of this hypothesis I'm working on called Projected Racism. Projected racism is where you make racist assumptions then use those racist assumptions to call other people racist.

Let me give an example. Some (not all) liberals assume that only white people have jobs. This is the initial racist assumption. Then a conservative will say something like "we should completely end all illegal immigration in order to keep wages up" which is a fairly race-neutral statement. Since the liberal in question assumes that only white people have jobs, a statement about defending jobs is clearly a statement to defend white people against Mexicans, therefore the conservative's statement about defending jobs must have been a racist statement against Mexicans.

Let's try another example of projected racism. A liberal will assume that only black people collect welfare. When a white or Asian person says something about slashing welfare, the liberal immediately jumps to the conclusion that this is a direct attack on black people, so the liberal will label the other person as being a racist.
completely ignoring the fact that more white people are on welfare than black people in terms of pure numbers.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,585
50,769
136
You skipped over the "import cheap labor" part which is exactly what this thread is about.

No I can not drive my car to China to get it fixed nor can I outsource the construction of my house or business but I can get those things done much cheaper by hiring illegal immigrants. So a ton of jobs that we have left are taken by "cheap imported labor" or illegal immigrants, what is left for the blue collar Americans?

This is about the combination of "free" trade and illegal immigration, talking about only one of those does not make the other go away.

Even though this is completely irrelevant to the thread, free trade isn't half bad when the parties play by the rules. That is not what is currently happening though.

Free movement of labor is also a component of free trade. Again, argue for trade protectionism if you want, but recognize that's what you're arguing for.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
completely ignoring the fact that more white people are on welfare than black people in terms of pure numbers.

You know black people are only 12% of the population right? o_O

It's kind of like the sound bite that there are more straight people with HIV than gays, therefore HIV isn't a gay disease. Well yeah, but gay men only make up 2% of the population yet account for nearly half of all HIV cases.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
You know black people are only 12% of the population right? o_O

It's kind of like the sound bite that there are more straight people with HIV than gays, therefore HIV isn't a gay disease. Well yeah, but gay men only make up 2% of the population yet account for nearly half of all HIV cases.

Your point being?

I also don't think it is to late to fix, we just have to be proactive and "mean". Time for being "nice" is over.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Your point being?

I also don't think it is to late to fix, we just have to be proactive and "mean". Time for being "nice" is over.

His point is that people skew statistics to misrepresent the truth in their favor. The perfect example would be your statement that more white people are on welfare then blacks which he corrected by pointing out that black people only make up about 12% of the US population.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
His point is that people skew statistics to misrepresent the truth in their favor. The perfect example would be your statement that more white people are on welfare then blacks which he corrected by pointing out that black people only make up about 12% of the US population.

He didn't correct anything, he simply added to it. Fact is more white people are on welfare than black people. Percentage of population on welfare might differ, but to associate welfare with black people is asinine if you know that fact.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Let's see now. Their deficit is 25.4 billion.



California Spends $21 Billion Annually to Support Undocumented Immigrants


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110126...n_annually_to_support_undocumented_immigrants

Okay. Now, how much do illegals ADD to CA's economy? Many of them pay income and sales and property and payroll taxes. Almost all of them are consumers and support local businesses. Also, because they're a cheap labor force, how much do Californians SAVE over what they'd have to pay if only more expensive labor were available?

Somehow, these BENEFITS of illegals are never mentioned by xenophobes. Merely stating the cost side of the equation is blatantly dishonest.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Your problem is thinking fruit picking jobs are bad jobs. Any job is a good job and it is up to the person to better themselves, not society to prop them up artificially because they were born here. If illegals didn't do it, American's would. If the price was to high, we would adjust the way we do things and move forward. Stop being such shortsighted pieces of shit, illegal aliens are a huge problem and net DRAIN. They have absolutely NO RIGHT to be here and they spit in the face of all the immigrants who go through the trouble of coming here legally.

You want to start some immigration reform and change the requirements for coming to this nation? Sure I'm all for that, lets work on it, but we should absolutely NOT be allowing illegal immigration and we should absolutely NOT be supporting illegal aliens.

I would pick fruit for $20 an hour.
Exactly. As a teenager I picked produce; lots of kids did. There are no jobs Americans won't do, merely jobs Americans won't do for that wage. Allowing in a large force of illegals merely depresses wages thrice: once by inflating the labor market, once by virtue of artificially expanding the pool of unskilled labor as a percentage, and once by introducing a group willing to work for much lower wages because of their illegal status AND their shitty options. As Zebo says, cheaper is more expensive.

California increasingly shows the progressive model for America; a small percentage of the ultra-wealthy, a relatively small percentage of government mandarins, and a very large population of relatively poor people. Trying to save the poor of South and Central America is resulting in recreating the poverty of South and Central America in the USA. When we should be exporting capitalism, economic liberty, and prosperity, we are instead importing poverty as a way of life.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Actually having them produce materials using their lower wage DOES make it more efficient in an economic sense, it's the comparative advantage of high population, low skill places like China, Vietnam, etc, their rich endowment of labor factors.

What you are basically arguing against is free trade. There has been a huge quantity of literature written about free trade, and the general consensus (as much as there is one in economics) is that free trade increases the GDP of all parties involved more than it costs them. It also DOES increase unemployment in sectors where trading nations have a comparative advantage over us, but it is a net positive to our economy. There's an interesting book about this topic from both a historical and comparative policy perspective that you might be interested in called "Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century". It's all about the pluses and minuses of free trade, and it's pretty easy reading. (true, the author shares my perspective, but I think even if you don't agree with him he presents things in a pretty evenhanded manner)

This is generally why economists promote free trade policies for nations as a whole, to grow GDP, but also endorse social safety nets in order to retrain and catch the losers in the process in order to preserve social stability and to increase factor mobility. This is actually one of the main problems with modern conservative ideology in my opinion, they are trying to increase free trade while dismantling social safety nets.

Indeed cheaper and more efficient when labor, safety, and environmental protections are disregarded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOBqRVDOYQ&NR=1



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqsY9eB1HD4&feature=related

But it's all O.K. as long as you get your efficient cheap goods and services.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I would pick fruit at 4 dollars an hour if I had no job. I am not above that.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
Okay. Now, how much do illegals ADD to CA's economy? Many of them pay income and sales and property and payroll taxes. Almost all of them are consumers and support local businesses. Also, because they're a cheap labor force, how much do Californians SAVE over what they'd have to pay if only more expensive labor were available?

Somehow, these BENEFITS of illegals are never mentioned by xenophobes. Merely stating the cost side of the equation is blatantly dishonest.
You're forgetting that they get free health care, education for their children, and government handouts. BIG drains.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Okay. Now, how much do illegals ADD to CA's economy? Many of them pay income and sales and property and payroll taxes. Almost all of them are consumers and support local businesses. Also, because they're a cheap labor force, how much do Californians SAVE over what they'd have to pay if only more expensive labor were available?

Somehow, these BENEFITS of illegals are never mentioned by xenophobes. Merely stating the cost side of the equation is blatantly dishonest.

lol @ idiots calling people xenophobes yet they have never ever once lived in the area or have any clue what the fuck they are talking about. they aren't adding anything that wouldn't already be added. you know if illegals weren't taking all of these "lower paying jobs" someone else would do it at a price that they thought was fair, a legal resident/citizen. Now if that rose the cost of living to high, well then we would have to attack that problem. What we're doing currently is using a PROBLEM to try and fix another PROBLEM, which is the cost of living in California. If more citizens/legal residents had to work these lower paying jobs we might see the cost of living decrease in California.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Free movement of labor is also a component of free trade. Again, argue for trade protectionism if you want, but recognize that's what you're arguing for.

I have and will continue to argue for "trade protectionism" and I completely understand what I am arguing for.

Regardless of what you call it exporting as many jobs as we can and then importing as much cheap labor from a 3rd world country to fill a large portion of what jobs we have left is not the road to prosperity.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I have and will continue to argue for "trade protectionism" and I completely understand what I am arguing for.

Regardless of what you call it exporting as many jobs as we can and then importing as much cheap labor from a 3rd world country to fill a large portion of what jobs we have left is not the road to prosperity.

what he's talking about doesn't matter anyways because the free movement of labor might be a free market principle, but the market isn't free. even if the entirety of the US market was free, the market still wouldn't be free because other nations and peoples don't have free markets. So we would require protectionism to protect our own free market, making it not free.

eskimospy is an idiot who doesn't understand what he is talking about.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
He didn't correct anything, he simply added to it. Fact is more white people are on welfare than black people. Percentage of population on welfare might differ, but to associate welfare with black people is asinine if you know that fact.

Yet your point is completely moot when you say that there are more white people on welfare but then fail to acknowledge that there will always be more white people on welfare because as stated before by another poster, blacks comprise 12% of the population. So yes he did correct your statement by adding in relevant information you either were ignorant about or left out to bolster you statement.

If you want to make bold statements and ignore specific factual data then you will have to deal with people who notice your mistake and then point out the error in your logic.
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
That's not even really the end problem though. The end problem is that, we end up with the US doing jobs that are then easily replaceable by other skilled service providers. We're already seeing that with IT, and now accounting services being offered in India. When India and China mature enough to have their own skilled professional class, as skilled as needed for quality, 4-8x cheaper in price, WTF is the US going to do then? FedEx can get the documents over to India ASAP, the 3 Indian accountants, all CPA's, can do the books for 1/4-1/2 what the 1 US CPA would have charged, all for the same result and likely quicker. Large accouting? Not even close, India will be far cheaper and again, for the same result. Legal? Same.

We've basically funded our own competition....

Chuck
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
what he's talking about doesn't matter anyways because the free movement of labor might be a free market principle, but the market isn't free. even if the entirety of the US market was free, the market still wouldn't be free because other nations and peoples don't have free markets. So we would require protectionism to protect our own free market, making it not free.

eskimospy is an idiot who doesn't understand what he is talking about.

Well he's either an idiot (I doubt it) or specifically ignoring the reality of our current (and long term) situation in order to paint a false economic rosy picture of "Free Trade" in general and its impact on the average US worker and job sector in this nation.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Yet your point is completely moot when you say that there are more white people on welfare but then fail to acknowledge that there will always be more white people on welfare because as stated before by another poster, blacks comprise 12% of the population. So yes he did correct your statement by adding in relevant information you either were ignorant about or left out to bolster you statement.
We're getting a bit off topic here.

With that projected racism post, my point is that this is not a race issue. People try to turn this into a race issue, but it just isn't. Having a huge number of illegal immigrants hurts wages for white Americans. It hurts wages for black Americans. It hurts wages for Asian Americans. It hurts wages for hispanic Americans. All Americans are hurt by this. Why anyone would try to turn this into a race game is totally baffling.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
We're getting a bit off topic here.

With that projected racism post, my point is that this is not a race issue. People try to turn this into a race issue, but it just isn't. Having a huge number of illegal immigrants hurts wages for white Americans. It hurts wages for black Americans. It hurts wages for Asian Americans. It hurts wages for hispanic Americans. All Americans are hurt by this. Why anyone would try to turn this into a race game is totally baffling.

Uh.. it's not baffling as to why someone would turn it into a race game, what is baffling is that anyone would accept their spiel about it. People bring up the race card in order to discredit the other opposing side in debate. This is like 99.9% of it's usage today.