Immigration "reform" Screwing Legal Americans

[michal1980]

Exactly! I am sick and tired of people conflating illegal immigration and legal immigration. I have yet to meet someone that wants to end all forms of immigration. Whenever I see a comment that accuses someone else of wanting to end all immigration, I just assume they don't want a serious discussion at all.

An unchecked open door immigration policy, much like we have now, is NOT the answer. All that does is move a problem to a different country, which might be masked in the short term via the welfare state, but it is not a long term answer.

No one accuses Norway, Sweden, or any other country as being "xenophobic nativists" for having a controlled immigration policy and a controlled border. Yet idiots inside the US, a country with 11+ million illegal immigrants, accuses anyone else in the US that wants a sane immigration policy that encourages a DIVERSE influx of legal immigrants of being racist, xenophobic, nativist, or whatever the slander du jour is.

i'm tired of the Statue of Liberty quote being used to support national policy. It was written by a poet. Not part of some national document anywhere.

 

[berzerker60]

They can say what they want, but I'm calling BS on that estimate.

We're primarily talking about low-skilled low-wage immigrants.

These immigrants tend to have large families, i.e., a lot of kids. This means, given the dependency exemption, Earned Income Credit and Child Tax Credit etc these low income immigrants will pay no income tax nor SS tax. Many not paying tax will likely get (extra) money back anyway. I.e., they will profit from income tax, not pay any.

'Free' education. Quotes are all over the place on how much public school school costs taxpayers per student. Say about $10k to $30k. per year. The argument seems to be that the lower amounts are quoted by the (state or local) govt and do not include such thing s as capital costs are interest expense etc.

In any case, with 3 or 4 kids we're looking at $30k to $40k per year (on the low side). If we confiscated their entire yearly wages we're still in a deficit for just public education.

Then consider food stamps, free medical care and other subsidies (Obama phones and what not) I see no way that this a deficit reduction and much of this is going to show up in states' financials instead of the fed govt budget directly (I expect the fed govt to have to step and float more money to states to keep them afloat, as it did in 2009 etc.).

Fern

Take a look at it yourself:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44225
It takes that stuff into account:

"The increase in the number of legal residents stemming from the bill would boost direct spending for federal benefit programs; direct spending for enforcement and other purposes also would rise. Under the bill, federal revenues would be higher as well, mostly because of the larger size of the labor force. Finally, implementing the bill would require an increase in discretionary funding (that is, funding subject to annual appropriation actions) for immigration-related activities."

"CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting S. 744 would generate changes in direct spending and revenues that would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the 2014–2023 period (see Table 1 on page 12). CBO also estimates that implementing the legislation would result in net discretionary costs of $22 billion over the 2014–2023 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized or otherwise needed to implement the legislation. Combining those figures would lead to a net savings of about $175 billion over the 2014–2023 period from enacting S. 744"

They have the cost estimates right there. I guess if you believe "your gut" rather than people who actually have access to data and training to analyze it, well, there's not much anyone can say to convince you of anything.

Exactly! I am sick and tired of people conflating illegal immigration and legal immigration. I have yet to meet someone that wants to end all forms of immigration. Whenever I see a comment that accuses someone else of wanting to end all immigration, I just assume they don't want a serious discussion at all.

An unchecked open door immigration policy, much like we have now, is NOT the answer. All that does is move a problem to a different country, which might be masked in the short term via the welfare state, but it is not a long term answer.

We have absolutely nothing like an open door immigration policy. It's even extremely difficult to gain citizenship if you're married to am American citizen and can bring in lots of money.

No one accuses Norway, Sweden, or any other country as being "xenophobic nativists" for having a controlled immigration policy and a controlled border. Yet idiots inside the US, a country with 11+ million illegal immigrants, accuses anyone else in the US that wants a sane immigration policy that encourages a DIVERSE influx of legal immigrants of being racist, xenophobic, nativist, or whatever the slander du jour is.

Yes they do, and rightly so. Lots of Scandinavians are super xenophobic.

 

[Svnla]

<snip>
Yes they do, and rightly so. Lots of Scandinavians are super xenophobic.

Do you know how Mexico/Mexicans treat the ILLEGALS entering its country? Must be because of racism, xenophobia, <fill in the blanks>, right?

Let look at Mexico law about ILLEGAL immigration and the penalties.

Mexico has some noteworthy standouts:

Under Article 123 of the General Population Act, illegal immigration is an offense punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of up to 5,000 pesos, or about $450. Typically, any crime with a punishment of a year or more is considered a felony.

Article 118 of the act says foreigners who are deported and then later attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be punished with up to 10 years in prison.

Under Article 73, local police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities when asked to help enforce the nation's immigration laws.

As set forth in several articles of the act, immigrants are admitted into Mexico according to their potential to "contribute to the national progress" and must have the income needed to support themselves.

Article 9 of the constitution says only citizens may assemble to "take part in the political affairs of the country." Under Article 33, noncitizens "may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

For most of the illegal immigrants who cross Mexico's southern border, deportation or other legal penalties are the least of their worries.

Migrants routinely face rape, robbery and assault. Corrupt police and soldiers are known to abuse them and take their money.

"Mexico has a deplorable record of human-rights violations on its southern border," Tinker Salas said. "That is well documented."

http://www.sbsun.com/columnists/ci_3767570

I do not know any sovereign developed country on Earth would be dumb enough like the US to welcome the ILLEGALS with no skill while the ones with PhD/MS degrees from US universities must leave when their visas expiring.

 

[BoberFett]

Take a look at it yourself:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44225
It takes that stuff into account:

"The increase in the number of legal residents stemming from the bill would boost direct spending for federal benefit programs; direct spending for enforcement and other purposes also would rise. Under the bill, federal revenues would be higher as well, mostly because of the larger size of the labor force. Finally, implementing the bill would require an increase in discretionary funding (that is, funding subject to annual appropriation actions) for immigration-related activities."

"CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting S. 744 would generate changes in direct spending and revenues that would decrease federal budget deficits by $197 billion over the 2014–2023 period (see Table 1 on page 12). CBO also estimates that implementing the legislation would result in net discretionary costs of $22 billion over the 2014–2023 period, assuming appropriation of the amounts authorized or otherwise needed to implement the legislation. Combining those figures would lead to a net savings of about $175 billion over the 2014–2023 period from enacting S. 744"

They have the cost estimates right there. I guess if you believe "your gut" rather than people who actually have access to data and training to analyze it, well, there's not much anyone can say to convince you of anything.


We have absolutely nothing like an open door immigration policy. It's even extremely difficult to gain citizenship if you're married to am American citizen and can bring in lots of money.

Yes they do, and rightly so. Lots of Scandinavians are super xenophobic.

So the US economy is a perpetual motion machine? Just keep adding more people and the it keeps getting better?

 

[ivwshane]

So the US economy is a perpetual motion machine? Just keep adding more people and the it keeps getting better?

Well one doesn't have to be a genius to see that having less people doesn't grow the economy.

If your point is that too many people can be a bad thing for the economy then exactly what is too many people and where did you get that info from?

 

[Smoblikat]

If it does, that's the Republicans fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY

I didnt know you knew Adam Sandler?

I mean come on, even when the libs are presented with 100% factual evidence they STILL blame republicans. Just like the entire US debt is still Bushs fault.

 

[Matt1970]

Take a look at it yourself:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44225
It takes that stuff into account:

"The increase in the number of legal residents stemming from the bill would boost direct spending for federal benefit programs; direct spending for enforcement and other purposes also would rise. Under the bill, federal revenues would be higher as well, mostly because of the larger size of the labor force. Finally, implementing the bill would require an increase in discretionary funding (that is, funding subject to annual appropriation actions) for immigration-related activities."

Where are these jobs going to come from?

 

[First]

Where are these jobs going to come from?

For one, most of them are already employed; half of them are only illegal because they let their work visa expire, so they're working somewhere. Two, the jobs come from the same places they're already coming from and have always come from; small businesses created by some of those 11M people. And third and perhaps most importantly, when you add people you add demand for additional goods and services, which requires those businesses to hire people.

Herp a derp.

 

[michal1980]

For one, most of them are already employed; half of them are only illegal because they let their work visa expire, so they're working somewhere. Two, the jobs come from the same places they're already coming from and have always come from; small businesses created by some of those 11M people. And third and perhaps most importantly, when you add people you add demand for additional goods and services, which requires those businesses to hire people.

Herp a derp.

If those people are already here, and working like you claimed. Wouldn't they already have created that demand for goods and services?

The only additional demand created will be for welfare.


And the additional stem just will create a huge downward pressure on middle/upper middle incomes.

 

[First]

If those people are already here, and working like you claimed. Wouldn't they already have created that demand for goods and services?

For those undocumented workers that are working, yes, they already did create that demand, absolutely.

The only additional demand created will be for welfare.

And the additional stem just will create a huge downward pressure on middle/upper middle incomes.

Yikes you're slow.

 

[IGBT]

from the white house to your local communities elections and agendas have consequences. You get what you vote for. Elections aren't popularity contests.

 

[OGOC]

H1B. Is a great way for American companies to get cheap educated workers, which will then be used to outsource departments in the future.

I've seen well-paid liberal engineers and similar people suddenly turn "racist" once they realize it's very likely their wages will go down.

I think the people most against amnesty-type bills are people who immigrated and became citizens legally during the past 10 or so years. They tend to get very upset about illegal aliens who have been breaking the law from the beginning.

 

[michal1980]

I've seen well-paid liberal engineers and similar people suddenly turn "racist" once they realize it's very likely their wages will go down.

I think the people most against amnesty-type bills are people who immigrated and became citizens legally during the past 10 or so years. They tend to get very upset about illegal aliens who have been breaking the law from the beginning.

how is it racist to protect your own wages?

Its government going after your wage. Everyone working should be upset at the wage reduction bill.

Futhermore, how is it racist to except the government [ you pay for, you vote for, a government that for most people supported their education to get them to be productive tax paying citizens, ] to support you, instead of some foreigner.

Who's interest should the US government be defending? Some Mexican crop picker? Some Indian engineers? A Chinese scientist? Or the American workers?

This legislation is so anti American is sickening.

 

[OGOC]

how is it racist to protect your own wages?

I put "racist" in quotes. I also said they were liberals. Liberals who otherwise would normally call other people "racist" for various things that aren't racist.

 

[BlueWolf47]

how is it racist to protect your own wages?

Its government going after your wage. Everyone working should be upset at the wage reduction bill.

Futhermore, how is it racist to except the government [ you pay for, you vote for, a government that for most people supported their education to get them to be productive tax paying citizens, ] to support you, instead of some foreigner.

Who's interest should the US government be defending? Some Mexican crop picker? Some Indian engineers? A Chinese scientist? Or the American workers?

This legislation is so anti American is sickening.

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.

 

[michal1980]

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.

opening the flood gates is not a core principal.

CBO's small short term negative effects last 10+ years.

if you are just starting out working right now, that's 25% of your working life. For anyone past that, its a much bigger chunk of their careers.

Sorry if I don't care about some foreigners interests over mine, but fuck them.

Do we need reform? yes. But you don't through the baby out with the bath water. IMHO immigration reform should benefit American's, from day one. VS harm America first, hope that decades later things will turn out ok.

 

[BlueWolf47]

opening the flood gates is not a core principal.

CBO's small short term negative effects last 10+ years.

if you are just starting out working right now, that's 25% of your working life. For anyone past that, its a much bigger chunk of their careers.

Sorry if I don't care about some foreigners interests over mine, but fuck them.

Do we need reform? yes. But you don't through the baby out with the bath water. IMHO immigration reform should benefit American's, from day one. VS harm America first, hope that decades later things will turn out ok.

If you start with 10 middle-class Americans and then add a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up. It's the shifting of the low-income Mexican person into the comparison set that drives the average down, not a decline in anyone's living standards.

I guess we shouldn't protect the border because in the short term its going to add to the deficit.

Only an idiot would make all their decisions based on a short-term outlook.

 

[michal1980]

If you start with 10 middle-class Americans and then add a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up. It's the shifting of the low-income Mexican person into the comparison set that drives the average down, not a decline in anyone's living standards.

I guess we shouldn't protect the border because in the short term its going to add to the deficit.

Only an idiot would make all their decisions based on a short-term outlook.

how dense are you?

Higher supply of workers = lower wages.

And its not just low end workers that are going to flood the market. Its the middle and upper class workers too. All because big business sold congress the lie, that without more STEM workers imported from other countries working for lower salaries, without health insurance will somehow help America.

And a 10+ year downturn in salaries is not short term.


Only a idiot would ignore the short term pain, based on the HOPE of longer term gain.

 

[shady28]

'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me"

Except for Messicans i guess, were no stinky brown ... wait, Jesus would have been one of those you'd have a problem with accepting into American soceity.

At least drop the religious schtick, you're no more Christian than Idi Amin.

BTW, illegals would NOT benefit from this.

Since you're interested in religious quotes, here is one for you :

""Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Matthew 7:6)."


.

 

[shady28]

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.

Using that logic, uncontrolled population growth (which is what they are really talking about) is a big win.

Thing is, that hasn't panned out very well in most places, now has it? In fact, has it panned out well anywhere?

And speaking of cognitive disorders, are you really dumb enough to think the politicians in congress and the white house have the interests of the average American citizen in mind?

 

[First]

Higher supply of workers = lower wages.

FYI, when you make statements like this, everybody intelligent here continues to think you're just slow.

 

[First]

Using that logic, uncontrolled population growth (which is what they are really talking about) is a big win.

Thing is, that hasn't panned out very well in most places, now has it? In fact, has it panned out well anywhere?

And speaking of cognitive disorders, are you really dumb enough to think the politicians in congress and the white house have the interests of the average American citizen in mind?

Examples of countries that experienced uncontrolled population growth that was a detriment to their economy? I'd love to see some data there.

 

[BlueWolf47]

Using that logic, uncontrolled population growth (which is what they are really talking about) is a big win.

Thing is, that hasn't panned out very well in most places, now has it? In fact, has it panned out well anywhere?

And speaking of cognitive disorders, are you really dumb enough to think the politicians in congress and the white house have the interests of the average American citizen in mind?

Where does uncontrolled population growth come into this? Population growth in the US continues to decline and is relatively low. Countries with uncontrolled population growth are less developed. But the growth is an effect of their socioeconomic conditions and not the cause of them.

I'm not ignoring a slight decrease in wages that may persist for 10 years. However, it's far outweighed by the positive effects.

I haven't stated anything about trusting politicians and the bill they are working on but if that helps you distract the conversation I guess you should keep pulling shit out of your ass.

 

[michal1980]

FYI, when you make statements like this, everybody intelligent here continues to think you're just slow.

CBO says the same thing.

Are they also slow?

 

[piasabird]

Why not take down Old Glory and hang up the Mexican flag. We can fire everyone in congress and hire mexicans to run the country cheaper.