Immigration "reform" Screwing Legal Americans

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

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,382
7,446
136
We tried it already with the amnesty program in 1986 for 3 million ILLEGALS and now we are about to do it again (for at least 11 million ILLEGALS) and expect different result?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

The number used at the time was 1 million. They acted under the belief that they'd legalize 1 million and then secure the border - surprise, the REAL number was 3 million. 3x what everyone publicly admitted. Today we publicly admit 11-13 million. *hint *hint.

If you visit California, you'll see clearly that the real number is going to be over 30 million.

Oh, and secure the border? Yesterday we did that for a million. Today we do it for 10 million. Tomorrow we'll do it for 100 million. They'll call it secure, and we'll learn Spanish.

America has no border, America has no sovereignty.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Cloward-Piven strategy



The strategy is being implemented. The big question is, will it be successful? If not, what are the consequences?

Big Risk. Could go the other way just as easily like Mexico is. 1% elite 5% who protect and work for them all behind walls and the rest, the vast majority in total destitution.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
I doubt immigration reform will ever happen.
The people in congress that make the laws would NEVER give up that cheap slave labor.
The guy that mows their lawn. The lady that feeds their kids. All for pennies and the threat of deportation.
Give THAT up? NEVER....
Even Mittens Romney admitted he employed illegals.
And you know that wasn't for minimum wage with benefits.

If, and thats a big "if", reform were to ever happen on the floors of congress, you know they would leave just enough leeway for that illegal nanny to keep her job in the congress persons home.
The truth is, the wealthy love their cheap slave labor.
And they run the politicians (or are politicians).
And their cheap slave labor will never be placed in jeopardy.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I can only imagine what people think of someone who starts a thread, berates others for disagreeing with him, then refuses to post again after it is proven to be a crock of shit.

California introduces Covered CA; Obamacare Exchange is Cheaper than Anticipated

lol. I see a thread where people got hot and bothered about a Forbes article that claims premiums went up double-to-triple digit percentages based solely on the averages of a single web site (eHealthInsurance) with literally zero proof or evidence that 1) people actually pay those premiums, 2) how many healthy 20 somethings were accepted/rejected for those plans and (mostly important) 3) what was the actual out-of-pocket coverage in those $92/month plans vs. the new ACA ones (which don't yet exist!). After all, your $92/month premium doesn't mean shit if you get limited to no drug coverage or your deductible is $2K for medical, with a separate equally onerous deductible for mental health if you're unfortunate enough to need said coverage. Hell, I've never even heard of this CA provider and I've had every type of health insurance under the sun here in CA in my 20's.

But I'll give you an A for effort.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
liberals are greatly dependent on a permanent poverty class thus the need to import the poverty class from mexico to the US. US kids are sooo screwed.
 

BlitzPuppet

Platinum Member
Feb 4, 2012
2,460
7
81
I think back to an idea I had while back in highschool....


If a child is born in the US, but the mother is an illegal immigrant: No Citizenship.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
No, they absolutely do not say that. Link and quote it.


And the hammer drops. BOOM

CBO’s central estimates also show that average wages for the entire labor force would be 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 under the legislation than
under current law. Average wages would be slightly lower than under current law through 2024, primarily because the amount of capital available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers and because the new workers would be less skilled and have lower wages, on average, than the labor force under current law. However, the rate of return on capital would be higher under the legislation than under current law throughout the next two decades.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44346-Immigration.pdf
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
In the longterm wages will increase, GDP will increase, demand for goods will increase, and the taxes collected will help reduce the deficit.

If you are unable to see that the positive effects far outweigh the small short-term negative effects immigration will have, you might want to see a neurologist because clearly you are suffering from a cognitive disorder.

Immigration in the past has been a core principal in American values and has played a vital role in the economic and technological advances we have achieved.

1. Opening the floodgates for other illegals to say "Heeeey! They are making them legal, nows the best time ever to join the party!"
2. Mandatory employing of spanish speaking government workers to combat it (note: Government workers are just more tax dollars - not a good thing)
3. No official language, everywhere you go having a seperation of language, almost as if...a seperation..of races. Derp derp
 

BlueWolf47

Senior member
Apr 22, 2005
653
0
76
Averages wages decreased by .1% !!!!!

Time to start vigilantly posses and round up these low-wage workers.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
Examples of countries that experienced uncontrolled population growth that was a detriment to their economy? I'd love to see some data there.

Ok, so I guess you really are unaware :

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

Some quotes :
Pg 17 :
"Today’s low-income countries still have
the world’s highest birth rates (see Map
3.1), although women tend to have fewer
children than before. "


Page 18/20 : "In the short run, rapid population growth in poor countries leads to lowerGNP per capita, allowing fewer resources to be invested in each person’s human capital—the key to increasing labor productivity. But in the long run, provided that labor productivity does in
fact increase, having more workers could contribute to the economic strength of
developing countries."

So I should point out something here - they have several charts depicting the first part of their statement about population growth leading to lower GNP per capita. The second part of their statement is conjecture, ie "could contribute to...".

There is a map of population growth on page 18, figure 3.1 Let us all know when you're moving to one of the booming high population growth countries that are going to be pulling in the dough in the future, and how that works out for ya.

More evidence :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12266665

"The relationship between population increase, economic growth, education and income inequality was examined in a cross-section study based on data from 26 developing and 2 developed countries. As other studies have noted, high population growth is associated with a less equal income distribution.

A 1 percentage point reduction in the rate of population growth tends to raise the income share of the poorest 80% in the less developed world by almost 5 percentage points and is associated with a 1.7 percentage point increase in the income share of the poorest 40%.

The relationship between short-run income growth and equality, on the other hand, is strong and positive. Estimates suggest that a 1 percentage point increase in the short-run rate of growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) increases the income share of the bottom 80% by about 2 percentage points and that of the poorest 40% by almost 1 percentage point. Although higher mean schooling appears to be a mild equalizer, educational inequality does not appear to have an adverse effect on income distribution. Overall, these results challenge the widely held belief that there must be a growth-equity trade-off. Moreover, they suggest that the impact of educational inequality on income distribution may be different from that observed in earlier studies, implying a need for caution in using these earlier results as a basis for educational policy development."
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,945
122
106
Under the Gang of 8’s backroom immigration deal with Senators Schumer, Corker and Hoeven, formerly illegal immigrants who are amnestied will be eligible to work, but will not be eligible for ObamaCare. Employers who would be required to pay as much as a $3,000 penalty for most employees who receive an ObamaCare healthcare “exchange” subsidy, would not have to pay the penalty if they hire amnestied immigrants.

Consequently, employers would have a significant incentive to hire or retain amnestied immigrants, rather than current citizens, including those who have recently achieved citizenship via the current naturalization process.

The issue is really an “interaction effect” of the immigration proposal and ObamaCare itself.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Fire-Americans-and-Hire-Amnestied-Immigrants
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,054
17
81
i find it hilarious that people think there is a way to stop it..

and the fact about poverty stricken areas having the highest population growth is completely fact, and is completely wired into our dna.. that is why there are so many black men with 14 kids with 14 women.. .it's wired into our dna... they are becoming "endanngered" thus the genetic code leans towards throwing out as many phenomes as possible in an attempt at creating more possible survivors of the bloodline (impoverished = rapid population growth) and it's not a matter of someone's "responisibility." it's code.
 

BlueWolf47

Senior member
Apr 22, 2005
653
0
76
Under the Gang of 8’s backroom immigration deal with Senators Schumer, Corker and Hoeven, formerly illegal immigrants who are amnestied will be eligible to work, but will not be eligible for ObamaCare. Employers who would be required to pay as much as a $3,000 penalty for most employees who receive an ObamaCare healthcare “exchange” subsidy, would not have to pay the penalty if they hire amnestied immigrants.

Consequently, employers would have a significant incentive to hire or retain amnestied immigrants, rather than current citizens, including those who have recently achieved citizenship via the current naturalization process.

The issue is really an “interaction effect” of the immigration proposal and ObamaCare itself.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...-Fire-Americans-and-Hire-Amnestied-Immigrants


Republicans insisted immigrants not receive subsidies from obamacare for at least 5 years. Are you now arguing they should receive the subsidies under obamacare?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,201
14,877
136
Republicans insisted immigrants not receive subsidies from obamacare for at least 5 years. Are you now arguing they should receive the subsidies under obamacare?

It depends on what position proves he hates Obama the most.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Republicans insisted immigrants not receive subsidies from obamacare for at least 5 years. Are you now arguing they should receive the subsidies under obamacare?


The fact that you cant see that illegals are being rewarded for, well, breaking the law, is just sad.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
It depends on what position proves he hates Obama the most.

No. It just means that immigration reform is like Obamacare, being rushed through, without its effects being understood.

Or maybe they are, and then you have to question why the democrats hate legal americans. And are actively working to lower legal Americans standard of living. What kind of screwed up government do we have, when it takes the interests of foreigner law breakers over that of its own citizens.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Ok, so I guess you really are unaware :

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

Some quotes :
Pg 17 :
"Today’s low-income countries still have
the world’s highest birth rates (see Map
3.1), although women tend to have fewer
children than before. "


Page 18/20 : "In the short run, rapid population growth in poor countries leads to lowerGNP per capita, allowing fewer resources to be invested in each person’s human capital—the key to increasing labor productivity. But in the long run, provided that labor productivity does in
fact increase, having more workers could contribute to the economic strength of
developing countries."

So I should point out something here - they have several charts depicting the first part of their statement about population growth leading to lower GNP per capita. The second part of their statement is conjecture, ie "could contribute to...".

There is a map of population growth on page 18, figure 3.1 Let us all know when you're moving to one of the booming high population growth countries that are going to be pulling in the dough in the future, and how that works out for ya.

More evidence :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12266665

"The relationship between population increase, economic growth, education and income inequality was examined in a cross-section study based on data from 26 developing and 2 developed countries. As other studies have noted, high population growth is associated with a less equal income distribution.

A 1 percentage point reduction in the rate of population growth tends to raise the income share of the poorest 80% in the less developed world by almost 5 percentage points and is associated with a 1.7 percentage point increase in the income share of the poorest 40%.

The relationship between short-run income growth and equality, on the other hand, is strong and positive. Estimates suggest that a 1 percentage point increase in the short-run rate of growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) increases the income share of the bottom 80% by about 2 percentage points and that of the poorest 40% by almost 1 percentage point. Although higher mean schooling appears to be a mild equalizer, educational inequality does not appear to have an adverse effect on income distribution. Overall, these results challenge the widely held belief that there must be a growth-equity trade-off. Moreover, they suggest that the impact of educational inequality on income distribution may be different from that observed in earlier studies, implying a need for caution in using these earlier results as a basis for educational policy development."

Your first, bolded statement is followed by the mother of all qualifiers about positive long-run effects. If every policy that was instituted didn't have short or long run disadvantages they'd be perfect policies. In reality, none such policies exist. And in this instance, reasonable population growth is common sense for economic growth.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Averages wages decreased by .1% !!!!!

Time to start vigilantly posses and round up these low-wage workers.

I'm still laughing that these rejects are actually arguing wages will "decrease" as if anyone can possibly cite such a weak statistic with a straight face.

Alas, michael takes the cake. Poor kid.
 

OGOC

Senior member
Jun 14, 2013
312
0
76
I'm still laughing that these rejects are actually arguing wages will "decrease" as if anyone can possibly cite such a weak statistic with a straight face.
That begs the question: with current unemployment and participation rates, would wages be higher right now if there were fewer people in the country? And, more closely related to this thread, if there were fewer low-skilled people in the country?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
That begs the question: with current unemployment and participation rates, would wages be higher right now if there were fewer people in the country? And, more closely related to this thread, if there were fewer low-skilled people in the country?

Those illegals are consumers too, so they definitely contribute to the economy. The problem is that their contribution is negative, after you take into account government expenditures and their low wages driving down average wages.

Democrats lament the middle class, but actively work against it once elections are over.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
The fact that you cant see that illegals are being rewarded for, well, breaking the law, is just sad.

To liberals, doing illegal border hoping is like the new gay.

You just need to get with the times old man! :colbert:













































































(try border hoping anywhere else and see if you make it to a trial or shipped back before a gun is pointed to your forehead).
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
That begs the question: with current unemployment and participation rates, would wages be higher right now if there were fewer people in the country? And, more closely related to this thread, if there were fewer low-skilled people in the country?


Our rise in inflation, lack of jobs, and decrease in pay is probably 80% blame on increase in labor.

This is in 2 fold: Illegal immigrants, poverty class mass producing, AND what really tops this off is actually from..... women. Dun dun dunnnn... When women started working you instantly doubled the working class. Once it turned that way, there was no turning back.

I'm all for equal rights, and this isn't really a feminism issue - it's an ecomic issue of women not understanding what economically occured from this catastrophe. What was once a working world where talent was needed all around is now a game of basketball for resume's in the trashcan from employers.